explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1230: Polar/Cartesian

2013-06-27T05:09:40Z

178.98.31.27:

Heh. Schroedinger's graph. Simultaneously 100% certainty of being Cartesian and 100% certainty of being Polar. [[Special:Contributions/12.117.213.34|12.117.213.34]] 09:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this a Polar graph? If it's a Cartesian, doesn't it end at 0%? As the line goes farther to the right, more time has passed instead of the "certainty" changing. --Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you take into account [[833]], this graph shows certainty that you are interpreting it correctly. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The ambiguity is due to the unlabelled x-axis. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The title text protip is really only applicable to 2 axes continuous graphes, unless you count ants being added or flicked away by the user as discontinuities. [[Special:Contributions/24.247.120.53|24.247.120.53]] 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ProfKrueger

The shape of the graph appears to be (in polar form) r(t)=100/(1+sin(t)), which I solved for using the constraint that r + y = 100, or rather (polar-observer's certainty that the graph is polar) + (cartesian-observer's certainty that the graph is polar) = 100%. The two observers become further entrenched in their own ideologies as time goes on, and at equivalent rates of entrenchment. [[Special:Contributions/98.197.196.242|98.197.196.242]] 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) DAF

The title text is, well, wrong. To plot coordinates "as a function of time" you would need THREE-axes. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
:No, we have a radius (from the zero point to the red line), we have an angel (from 0° to 90°), and we have a point moving along that red line by time. A single (not moving) ant would just be a (red) point.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

==Incomplete tag==
I did add this tag just because we have a chaos at explanation here. So I will try to simplify but I will also need your help, maybe discussed here at talk first.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

==Transcript is biased?==

"[The graph shows a red curve starting at 50% on the Y-axis and arcing down to intersect 0% at the 10th unit of the X-axis.]" That seems judgemental as to which kind of graph it is. Without misquoting Word Of God in any way is it possible to instead make changes something like "...starting at 50% in the direction represented by the vertical axis and ''either'' arcing down to [...] the horizontal-axis ''or'' spiraling outwards to 100% by the radial angle represented by this perpendicular." But perhaps less verbose, if someone has the verbal skills required to accomplish this. (Also, transcript does not mention the arrow, at all, with its possible significance. It could be just treated as an idle temporal indicator, regardless of graph-type, although it ''has'' strong associations with polar graphing, as mentioned.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 05:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:16: Monty Python -- Enough

2013-06-25T16:52:03Z

178.98.31.27:

An army of suicidal scotsmen are outside. They would like to object to your refusal to remember their plight. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

== Comic image broken ==

I'm hoping that someone else will notice this comment and fix it, since I'm not sure how to. --[[Special:Contributions/143.112.144.129|143.112.144.129]] 22:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

fixed. [[Special:Contributions/59.167.244.130|59.167.244.130]] 03:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

People are always asking my why I spend so much time quoting Monty Python, but I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! It's the meaning of life, Bruce. My mother just says "He's a very naughty boy!", but that might just be because I dress in women's clothing and hang around in bars. No, no, no, sorry, it's all getting too silly now. My brain hurts, and now for something completely different. It's... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (PS., sorry for all this spam, spam, spam, spam and spam. Perhaps I should just have stripped naked and played with my organ, instead?)

21: Kepler

2013-06-25T16:25:19Z

178.98.31.27: /* Explanation */ Tyop corrected.

{{comic
| number = 21
| date = October 17, 2005
| title = Kepler
| image = kepler.jpg
| titletext = Science joke. You should probably move along.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Johannes Kepler}} was a German mathematician, astronomer and astrologer, best known for his laws of planetary motion. By using Tycho Brahe's observations of our solar system, Brahe gave Kepler the job of observing and explaining the motion of the planet Mars, Kepler was able to deduce that planets in the system do not move in a circular orbit around the Sun, but rather in an elliptical one.

The suspicious nature of {{w|Tycho Brahe}}'s death in 1601 and Johannes Kepler's possible role in his end constitutes one of history's greatest unsolved dead mysteries. Brahe has been exposed to mercury, but if this did cause his death and if Kepler was involved is still unknown.

According to {{w|Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#Second_law|Kepler's Second Law}}, "A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time." This looks like wiping a wipe on the floor.

In the comic, the janitor Kepler also sweeps the same area, although in this case "area" is used in the sense of "surface" (of floor) rather than in the purely mathematical sense.

==Transcript==
:[Two people stand in an aisle in a store.]
:Person 1: Nice store. How do you keep the floors so clean?
:Person 2: Oh, we hired this dude named Kepler, he's really good. Hard worker. Doesn't mind the monotony. Sweeps out the same area every night.

==Trivia==
*Original [[Randall]] quote: "Another one which, if you don't get, you're probably better off."
*This is the twentieth comic posted to livejournal. The previous was [[20: Ferret]]. The next was [[44: Love]].

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:57: Wait For Me

2013-06-24T23:06:38Z

178.98.31.27:

This could also be a reference to relativity, but I may be overthinking it. [[Special:Contributions/130.160.145.185|130.160.145.185]] 06:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going with the more fantastical route. Cueball could have gone to Narnia in the ninety seconds she was gone. He could have had an affair and a child that is her age within that time. [[Special:Contributions/72.193.184.110|72.193.184.110]] 10:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And is maybe even a half-fawn? ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:74: Su Doku

2013-06-24T15:07:21Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "If that puzzle is 4 (i.e. 2x2) domains of 1x1 cells or 1 domain of 4x4 cells then it's actually an impossible puzzle. Sudoku grids for 'n' symbols (ignoring some very interes..."

If that puzzle is 4 (i.e. 2x2) domains of 1x1 cells or 1 domain of 4x4 cells then it's actually an impossible puzzle. Sudoku grids for 'n' symbols (ignoring some very interesting variants) need to be of n² cells in total with n cells in each direction, composed of n 'domains', each of n cells so as to contain ''one and only one'' of each symbol in use. That's 81 cells in a traditional 1-9 digit 9x9 format, being 3x3 array of 3x3 individual cells in typical <strike>Sudokus</strike> <strike>Sudokii</strike> <strike>Sudoka</strike> puzzles, but can be irregularly domained instead as long as the domains still have nine cells. In a 12-digit that's often 3x4 cells in each domain, arrayed 4x3 (or 4x3 arrayed 3x4) to make a 12x12 full grid but can be 2x6 6x2s (or <=>) or of irregular, but still equally-sized, subdivisions. ("Killer" variations typically augment the row, column and domain parities with a 'fourth dimension' of ''unequally''-sized irregular domains (no larger than any other domain, containing a ''maximum'' of one of each digit, but possibly zero of some) labelled as having a stated sum total within (more than or equal to m*(m-1)/2 for m cells in that given sum-zone, assuming the lowest digit is 1, and less than or equal to (n*(n-1)/2)-((n-m)*(n-m-1)/2), if n digits are being used as unique symbols throughout the whole grid), but that's generally in leiu of ''all'' pre-existing clue digits, using Kakuro-like calculations to break ground on the puzzle's answer.)

Realistically, therefore, the comic must be 1x2 domains of 2x1 cells. Or the other way round. Although it's not obvious from the line-weighting which it might be. As each subdivision is the same as the row-grouping or column-grouping it could effectively be just a 'simpler' puzzle that abandons or considers redundant domains ''other'' than the basic rows and columns, given that each possible domain-type would be congruent with one or other of the two implicit groupings. However, it definitely could ''not'' be an "X" variant of the puzzle type (repetition dissallowed across the major diagonals, as well as across rows and columns), otherwise it reverts to being impossible again...

However, none of what I've just said is particularly entertaining, so please feel free to ignore it and instead try the following Unary Sudoku.... (Hint: its major diagonals are also valid domains to solve!)

□

[[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 15:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:79: Iambic Pentameter

2013-06-24T14:11:48Z

178.98.31.27: Darnit, error in the first line...

It's really not so hard to write such prose, 
To stick to Shakespeare's scheme for fellow bards, 
Of course the preparation always slows, 
So spontaneity aint on the cards. 
The better art of live concoction sits, 
Beyond the skill of I your editor, 
And this is why the comic title bits, 
Are true and accurate without a flaw. 
Or so I humour Randall by these lines, 
Restricted by the form I've set upon, 
Fearing that soon I'll commit rhyming crimes, 
That you the readers see arrive, 'ere long. 
And thus a sonnet author finds to be, 
Whether for fun or for a Dark Lady. 
[[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 14:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:79: Iambic Pentameter

2013-06-24T14:08:14Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "It's not so hard to write such prose, To stick to Shakespeare's scheme for fellow bards, Of course the preparation always slows, So spontaneity aint on the c..."

It's not so hard to write such prose, 
To stick to Shakespeare's scheme for fellow bards, 
Of course the preparation always slows, 
So spontaneity aint on the cards. 
The better art of live concoction sits, 
Beyond the skill of I your editor, 
And this is why the comic title bits, 
Are true and accurate without a flaw. 
Or so I humour Randall by these lines, 
Restricted by the form I've set upon, 
Fearing that soon I'll commit rhyming crimes, 
That you the readers see arrive, 'ere long. 
And thus a sonnet author finds to be, 
Whether for fun or for a Dark Lady. 
[[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 14:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:84: National Language

2013-06-24T07:09:45Z

178.98.31.27:

Any idea what she's saying? [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 08:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, she's [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071104151337AAWzYeu introducing herself]: "Hello, my name is Sarah". -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that the United States does not actually ''have'' an official language, at States-wide level? The United Kingdom has English legislated for, while officially recognises various Celtic languages regionally (equivalent to that Cherokee example that may well be a state/sub-state official lingo?). India has English and Hindi on the relevent official national statutes (as well as many and varied other ones listed regionally, IIRC), so may technically demand English usage more so than the US itself.

(It is somewhat an urban legend that the US was just a hair's-bredth away from adopting German as its official language, but still fun to speculate how that might have affected its alliances for either World War, had it been linguistically more connected to the 'other side', and perhaps having a Special Relationship with the different European power thus affecting what side they'd officially support in 1914/1939.)

It's a convention, of course. But there are any number of communities that (many generations since the original settling event) still maintain their own non-Anglo/non-Native language, internally, as a majority tongue for the community. Albeit to various lesser or even effectively insignificant degrees in the grand scheme of things, compared to the national usage of English. (Somewhat mis-spelt English, of course. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 07:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:91: Pwned

2013-06-24T05:50:39Z

178.98.31.27:

[[User:Rikthoff|Rikthoff]] ([[User talk:Rikthoff|talk]]) Does anybody know why this comic is stored in Portable Graphic Format (PNG) instead of JPEG? Is this an inside joke? -- 12:29, 3 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Guest: An alternate way to look at this uses the same three cultural acknowledgements, but with a little more of thoughtful understanding. The grue lies in wait in the dark and devours the player, and likewise a 'camper' player in CS would wait for a player and kill them upon entry. It can be looked at that the blindness of entering the room that the camper kills the player at is comparable to the darkness that the grue eats the player from. All-in-all this amounts to a frustrating experience of dying in a game, and so a correlation is drawn. Because they seem to be similar frustrations, in which the only effective difference is whether you read it or see it, the text thus implies that there is no actual leverage that makes graphical games favored.
It may also further extend from this to additionally taunt the relatively basic slang of getting killed in Counter-Strike being immature, brief, and unfulfilling compared to the larger descriptions that try to pull the player into the game that was needed for Zork to accommodate for the lack of graphics. {{unsigned ip|66.177.70.225|03:20, 20 September 2012‎ (UTC)}}

It's not worth changing the description, as it's not relevant to the context, but Zork was ''not'' "typical" because it could understand more complex commands than most other (non-{{w|Infocom}}) text adventures, like "kill the troll with the axe". [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 12:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, it's not just (standard) processor and memory improvements that led to graphical games but (unsurprisingly) actual graphical capability... Text-based games (including MUDs) could be played on anything, even text-only terminals and over telnet connections and the like. Graphical capabilities beyond CGA (which limits us to ASCII-art or 'ASCII-shaded' depictions of things, in leiu of sticking to text-only descriptions) allowed a progression to FPS-ish, via the likes of graphical tile-based games (although see Dwarf Fortress as a game that could have been text-only in its tile-ness, albeit that even the vanilla character-based display is ''implemented'' with graphics of said characters), and even if it was EGA you ''could'' now get graphics, and have to start worrying about whether you could calculate the image quickly enough to start looking at pre-Dooms, especially when you don't yet ''necessarily'' have anything approximating a separate GPU and graphics RAM... Which is much as originally said, but... ;)

Oh, and (referencing Rikthoff's question) IMO the .PNG format is far more suited to Randall's comics than .JPG, so I'm not sure there's any inside-joke. Indeed, some of the other early comics with colours (that may have been saved as JPEGs, I haven't checked) appear to have quite a lot of artefacts in them, but I don't know if anyone's enumerated the formats used. Certainly the very latest are PNG, which I say is all for the best. I can think of at least one (the Steve Jobs memorial one) that was almost certainly .GIF, because it needed animation. Inferior to .PNG, but still superior to JPEG for largely monochrome line-drawings (and not bad even for colour-filled ones, if not requiring the full gamut of colours that the current favoured format technically allows). [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 05:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:103: Moral Relativity

2013-06-23T21:56:03Z

178.98.31.27:

The issue date might be off. All files since #101 have been created on April 11th, 2006. Anyone with an actual issue date?

:I've verified that the date is now correct. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, there ''is'' actually such a thing as {{w|Moral relativism}}, which is "the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise". e.g. oh... maybe whether a government should pay a ransom to some group for a kidnapped citizen? There's probably a far better example.

But, anyway, this also maps well to the whole "two observers moving in differing frames of reference cannot agree on various facts" form of the Space-Time relativism. (As referenced in [[265]] and [[514]], amongst others.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:119: Worst Band Name Ever

2013-06-23T05:06:10Z

178.98.31.27:

What about hitchslapper? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What indicates there is no audience? "...the name 'Hedgeclipper' as the reason why the band has no audience..." I read it as the other members or a promoter/manager decided on a band name for a battle-of-the-bands, open mic, or other venue with multiple acts, and told the announcer, but an audience might still be there. [[User:Tryc|Tryc]] ([[User talk:Tryc|talk]]) 13:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that, if they end up being any good, then whatever their name it'll be forever associated with a successful band. I mean ''The B''ea''tles'' is such a kitsh name, right? What on Earth is ''U2'' supposed to mean (to anyone not familiar with the plane type, or the various other vehicles and objects given that name), and what made it "the name that they disliked the least"? ''Arctic Monkeys''? Silly name. ''The Who''? Who? (And surely more grammatically ''The Whom''!) Are ''The Beach Boys'' lifeguards? Isn't ''Blondie'' just what we call that fair-haired lass in the office? And you can forget right now about ''The Buzzcocks'' and ''The Sex Pistols'', I think you just wandered into the wrong store... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:134: Myspace

2013-06-23T00:58:08Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Not sure (because this machine has no audio, and I'm accessing an archive of the site) but the Yvette's Bridal Formal site was always an examplar of... well, loads of things, ..."

Not sure (because this machine has no audio, and I'm accessing an archive of the site) but the Yvette's Bridal Formal site was always an examplar of... well, loads of things, but definitely including music. Bagpipe music ''one'' page, IIRC. Anyway, it had disappeared, last time I checked, but I have the link http://web.archive.org/web/20110718150459/http://yvettesbridalformal.com/ (might need to be better URLified with %3A%2F%2F or whatever it needs in there) that at least gives the visual... experience? [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 00:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1228: Prometheus

2013-06-22T20:03:14Z

178.98.31.27:

Could this be an analogy for file sharing? {{unsigned ip|24.255.167.124}}

As '''an author''' of very expensive business software, I love the idea of giving it away and making money through "value added". I truly believe that most people who "steal" software would never have paid for it anyway. Similarly, when I worked for a clothing manufacturer, other companies were always copying our designs but we made more money than them because we were the place to go for the new stuff. [[User:Hax|Hax]] ([[User talk:Hax|talk]]) 10:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to say something like "The title-text gives what might be a typical approach to movie dialogue in a typical (Michael) Baysian movie plot," but am not sure I'm correct and/or pithy enough.  [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:Do we also need to explain that this line is not in reference to an existing movie?  [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the returning what Prometheus stole explanation need to be that involved? I thought it could be interpreted as a simple play on words referring to "returning fire" since it's also just a phrase that means to return an attack? [[Special:Contributions/128.197.37.175|128.197.37.175]] 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

: Haha.. Vote to edit title text to "I'm here to return fire." However, I'm wondering if we've inverted the meaning through the ages, and if the etymology of the phrase won't reveal pacifist origins: returning the fire as in refusing to fight. Refusing to light a war-signal, or light arrows etc. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:I'm all for information freedom, but you CAN steal fire. You could take away the only spark/source of ignition/activation energy provision in the possession of the gods. Secondly, fire needs fuel to burn. Take away all their fuel, and you've stolen their fire. Alright, you have your own fuel? Fine, you're still stealing fire, because once you've discovered how to make a fire - you burn your fuel, release more combustible products, and choke the atmosphere (Though, we'd have snuffed ourselves out before we snuffed out Olympus). In any case, you're accelerating the {{w|heat death}} of the universe, and making all thermodynamic cycles "less efficient" because of the higher sink temperatures. But that's not the marrow of the bone of contention. Even the original Prometheus-v-Gods animosity arose because of information theft, and not 'property' theft. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:: You CAN steal fire, but looking at the {{w|Prometheus}} myth it doesn't seem gods lost the fire after the "theft". Would be pretty hard, too, considering the gods ({{w|Hephaestus}} specifically) have {{w|volcano}}s (which, technically, are powered by geothermal energy and not by burning fuel ; speaking about them, igniting wood using volcanos can easily be a source of Prometheus myth). And the thermal death of universe? Chemical reactions are insignificant in this regard. Finally, the reason Gods hated Prometheus for stealing fire is generally agreed upon to be them being jerks. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

::Could it also be a reference to Terry Pratchett's "The Last Hero?" Y'know, where Cohen the Barbarian (et al) decide to return fire to the gods...?(-Aerych){{unsigned ip|216.131.24.14}}

:::I immediately thought of The Last Hero too.{{unsigned ip|199.83.221.155}}

::::Actually nothing in comics seems to specifically refer The Last Hero, suggesting that Pratchett and Randall simply had the same idea about how the phrase of "returning fire to gods" can be interpretted. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Just that Pratchett had it in 2001, and published it widely. Surely a geek should be well aware of the Diskworld series? Cohen starts off by saying that 'The Last Hero should return what the First Hero stole...' and, later on provides a typical one-liner "We're going to return fire to the Gods. With interest..." (reveals a barrel of gunpowder) {{unsigned|86.10.119.75}}

::::::To be precise, Agatean Thunder Clay. While Discworld has black powder explosive (see Men At Arms), this is something that "you have to smash a jar of acid in the mixture. The acid soaks into it, and then - kabloouie, I believe the term is." So maybe a sort of 'binary explosive mixture' type of thing, although the clay bit harks back to Alfred Nobel's original breakthrough. But it's very much a mix of memes, as it ends up proving powerful enough (a single barrel of it becoming "an explosion which has reduced a mountain to a valley") that it's very much an atomic-weapon analogue. Sorry, just thought I'd clarify, even if it's not direct inspiration to Randall or overly relevent to this comic. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:150: Grownups

2013-06-22T18:23:53Z

178.98.31.27:

Date of issue is definitely incorrect. Could someone fix that? [[User:Rikthoff|Rikthoff]] ([[User talk:Rikthoff|talk]]) 16:35, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

fixed.--[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a (partial?) solution to the urine problem. Don't let any toddlers and children into your apartment, let alone hundreds of them. HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 18:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2013-06-22T17:24:15Z

178.98.31.27: /* Category: (Barred/banned from?) Conferences */ Added one that I'd missed out, even though it was the very one that sparked the idea...

<noinclude>{{Community portal}}</noinclude>

== Add unexplained strips ==

At the moment, browsing through the explanations using the previous and next buttons is interrupted whenever there's an explanation missing.

I think adding a page with the strip fr all of those with a short message like "no one has explained this yet, want to give it a shot?" would make the wiki easier to browse through and will get more strips explained faster.

:I don't think that would happen. If suddenly it was much easier for people to skip over pages that had no explanation, I think they would do exactly that, skip right over it. On the same side of that coin, If suddenly there are no longer any red links on the [[List of all comics]] then everyone perusing that page assumes that all the comics have been explained and don't need to contribute any more. It's astonishing how quickly an [[589: Designated Drivers|embedded]] red link gets an explanation page created simply to get rid of the red link.

:Secondarily, ''many'' of the pages created recently aren't being created with their numerical and titular redirects. Without the numerical redirect, the comic template can't find that there is a previous/next comic to link to. Every once in a while somebody will go through and try to notice all the pages that don't have their redirects created but it's an unscientific process that only happens occasionally. If we could get every joe blow that comes in and vomits up a poorly done explanation to create the redirects I wouldn't be quite as annoyed at their lack of show-don't-tell-manship. But, since they can't be bothered to put the date in the comic template, I doubt we'll ever get people to create the redirects.

:'''TL;DR:''' No more red links, no more work gets done on the back catalog.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

== xplainkcd.com ==

When I first saw this site I thought it should definitely be at xplainkcd.com or at least redirect from that url {{unsigned|115.166.22.158|12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)}}

: I like that idea! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah! If it's possible, it would be cool! At least as a redirect. -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== Section style and usage ==

I am new here and I'm trying to get up to speed with the culture. I have a few questions about how and where to use sections (== this ==). I am more willing to go with (and enforce) whatever norms there are here, but I have not seen them actually discussed.

# '''Is it OK to create sections in Discussion pages?''' I have been told no, but there are many examples extant of this usage in this Wiki and indeed in Wikipedia.
# '''Section title case''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Acronyms Wikipedia's style guide] recommends sentence case, not title case. There are many title cased section headers here.
# '''Links''' I do not have a reference for this but it seems to me putting links in section code (== [[<nowiki>this</nowiki>]] == ) is bad form.

Last note -- it's understood if these bylaws have not yet been written. I can see that a few of you have made a huge personal investment to make this Wiki what it is today, and that is a credit to you all -- this is awesome! As a long-time aficionado of xkcd I applaud your work and look forward to further collaboration.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:As a general rule, we stick to the standard format that existing pages follow, with an optional trivia section below the transcript. Some zealous editors like to add other sections though, which tend to be for the most part unneeded or redundant. If something you want to add doesn't help to explain the comic in some way, but the inclusion of which would somehow still add to the page, *and* it doesn't fall under the trivia category, a new section is warranted. This isn't the case most of the time though, so editors usually fold the content of extraneous sections into "Explanation" or "Trivia." We have no policy on links in titles, and they're allowed so long as they are appropriate; the link is useful and can't be folded into the section itself. And we use title case for titles cuz it just makes sense. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:We generally do not (or at least, discourage) use sections on the talk/discussion pages for explanation pages. This is purely for looks. The comic discussion section of the explanation page looks/feels wrong if there are level 2 section breaks in the transclusion. Also, if the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents Table of Contents] starts showing up on a page, such as on [[Click and Drag]] the sections created on the talk page also show up in the TOC. This gets confusing, and this is why we prefer not to use them on explanation talk pages. Everywhere else we follow standard wiki format and do use sections on the discussion pages.

:Personally, I think that links in section titles looks wrong, but I choose not to be the dictator of style in this matter. :p

:Please feel free to make edits. The worst that happens is someone reverts your edit. If it's a big enough issue and/or you don't seem to be learning from what people are fixing about your edits someone will leave a comment on your talk page. That's it. We might leave a nasty-gram in the edit summary, but oh well. We only ban for malicious intent. Honestly working to better the wiki is good, even if sometimes we grumble about it.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Oh, I just looked at your talk page. I completely forgot that that happened. Don't worry about it. Learning the ropes is part of the experience. Do make edits, and if they're wrong, we'll nudge you in the right direction. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been moving some trivia sections to directly below the explanation, in order to make it more consistent, and easier to survey and maintain. Often the dividing line between trivia and explanation is not entirely clear, and in articles without a trivia section the end of the explanation very often contains trivia-like information. (e.g. [[1155: Kolmogorov Directions]]) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

== 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:Speculation|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)

== 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)

==New character==
As per [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]], the character with hair has appeared in quite a few comics now, and he's starting to become a recurring character. Shall we go ahead with inaugurating him into our list of regular characters, and what name shall we assign him? Current candidate names include Hairy and Harry. Anyone? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: I like Harry :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::Cos made a point in the discussion on [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]] that Hairy is directly descriptive, whereas Harry is not obvious to visitors. On the other hand, not all names are descriptive ([[Danish]]) and I think this wiki is entitled to create some xkcd-in-culture, and not just describe. And Harry is quite funny.
::I wonder: has [[Randall]] ever called him anything at all in the transcript? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, he's not named in a any official transcripts, but he's already called Harry in quite a few comic explanations. Then again, I do like having a more descriptive name for him. Shall we hold this up to a vote? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we should wait a little for a few more viewpoints to crop up. Also, can someone link to some more comics he's been featured in? I've got [[1028: Communication]], [[1027: Pickup Artist]] and [[1178: Pickup Artists]]. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I actually like what that anon said: ''Curly''. Second choice: Hairy (being descriptive, a la Black Hat, Beret, Cueball, etc.) While there's talk about in-culture, we've done that with the names Cueball, Beret, etc. It's my opinion that the only names that should be "real" proper names are those that are named in the comic. Megan, Miss Lenhart, etc. Danish (as is discussed below) isn't truly a proper name, but you could argue it's a meta-description (one attributed by Black hat.) So that's my vote: yes for '''Curly''' or '''Hairy''', no for Harry. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::That's right, [[Danish]] is not descriptive, but 1/ that name was suggested because the character [[515: No One Must Know|was called that way in the comic]], which is a tiny bit like a name given by the author (at least more than Harry which we have completely made up), and 2/ in that case it's hard to find a descriptive term: use something that revolves around her black hair (her only descriptive feature), and you easily mix up with [[Megan]]; the only graphical difference is that her hair is ''long'', but what kind of name can you make out of that?
:::For this new character, I suggest Hairy because it comes as the easy solution with every advantage: descriptive, easy to understand, and it's not ugly... I actually see no reason to resort to a made-up name like Harry.
:::[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

: '''Alright. So the discussion's been had, and the most oft recommended name appears to be Hairy. All in favor, say aye. If more than 1/3 of editors agree and we have more than 6 votes, Hairy it is.''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' [[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' to Hairy. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Harry would be a nice nod to the fact that he's actually hairy, but indeed it's better to avoid inside jokes. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. I'm convinced! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 17:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Hairy. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Hooray! We now have a [[:Category:Comics featuring Hairy]], with four pages already! Does anyone feel compelled to create "[[Hairy]]", with a brief description and a nice profile pic like the other characters? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

== Ambiguous characters ==

I've been thinking about the problem of the ambiguity of characters. "Is this really Cueball even though he has an eye and half a nose?", "This is very likely ''not'' x." "Darnit, these arn't Cueballs, these are Randall and his friends!", and so on. The character ambiguity is standard for xkcd (not less so in the early ones), and comes from the very loose or "free" way Randall uses his characters to be whatever he needs at the moment. It's simply often impossible for us to know whether he had e.g. "Cueball" or himself in mind, when drawing a particular comic (and I'd say: probably often both).

I want to suggest that we in general have a likewise rather loose policy towards including characters in the categories for the comics. So that reasonably ambiguous cases should be included in e.g. [[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]] (does she have a ponytail?) This is not because I believe this or that to really be this or that; I just don't believe in objective truth (here!). I feel that when doing research :) on a character, the borderline cases are often the most interesting ones, and you want to be able to find them through the "Comics featuring miss x"!

I came to think this through now, when I wanted to (and did) list two comics with [[Miss Lenhart]] (?) where she was drawn but not named. Any thoughts on this in general? Other case studies? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:My take has always been that [[Cueball]], for example, has not been a specific character. There is not ''a'' cueball, per se, distinct from any other cueball... indeed, there are several comics with several cueballs in-frame, and that is the point. I see the cueball character as a wildcard character (pun intended) ready to stand in for anybody (and ''not'' necessarily just Randall; I think those readers who suggest "this ''is'' Randall" are missing the point; he's way more META than that...) [[Megan]], while slightly less generic, still remains the female wild-card significant-other, while Curls seems to be a not-significant-other female used to illustrate a relationship that is transient. Other characters come and go, and when it's important to visually distinguish them from others in the frame, they're given additional characteristics, to wit [[Hairy]], [[Ponytail]], etc.
:Unfortunately, that viewpoint is not commonly held, so I daresay I'm in the minority here.
:-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

== Note at the top, about the server error ==

:''This thread was moved to [[MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice]]''

== 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)

== I've removed "add a comment!" from Discussion heading ==

This does move it to above the line, and the rule stops early. Undo my change if that's more bothering than when the TOC is displayed as "add a comment!Discussion"...

I don't know how to automatically treat level 2 headers as level 3. That may be why Discussion was a level 1 heading earlier.
[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:Actually I now noticed there was a short edit war at {{tl|comic discussion}} over whether it should be a level 1 heading, just for this reason. [[User:Waldir]] seems to have conceeded... [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

:: No edit war, hence no (intentional) concession. I reverted a change once, and didn't notice the change being re-implemented by another user. In any case, it is irrelevant now since we actively discourage using headers in talk pages precisely so that they don't display in the TOC for the main comic page, where the discussion page is transcluded to (see the discussion [[#Section style and usage|above]]). This might not scale well for comics that generate lots of discussion. It might be worth discussing our customs (and perhaps write them down somewhere) before performing such changes. What do others think? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

== Time: The Table ==

Right now on the page [[1190: Time]], we have a whole bunch of tables in the form image-time-hash. The tables take up heaps of vertical space and all have to be collapsed to even be remotely traversible. I propose that we aggregate all the images into one table after Time ends, like so:

{| class="wikitable plainlinks table-padding"
|-
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:00]]||01/00:00||[[Media:time.png|10:00]]||01/10:00||[[Media:time.png|20:00]]||01/20:00||[[Media:time.png|30:00]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:30]]||01/00:30||[[Media:time.png|10:30]]||01/10:30||[[Media:time.png|20:30]]||01/20:30||[[Media:time.png|30:30]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|}

The hash values aren't really a part of the comic, they're gibberish for the most part and they take up space that could be used to compact the table, as shown above. Even if we are conservative and make the table only five columns wide to account for smaller screens, we've divided scrolling time by five and eliminated much of the need for annoying collapsed tables and section headers for each day. Constructing the table shouldn't be particularly hard either, as all our current data is in nice regular tables with clear patterns that are easy enough to parse through.

I'm putting this here because the organization of the frame entries would be unintuitive and difficult to change from the edit window, which would make it a poor choice when we're still expanding it and don't even know how long the comic will continue for. It's merely a space-saving trick for after we're sure that the comic is over. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

:Oh and it'd be really nice if other people could also upload images if you're awake and a new one rolls by. There's gaps in the image record every time I wake up, and I dun likey. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
:Good work so far; go ahead make it better! :) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

==Featured Explanation, and Archival?==

* Wikipedia has featured content. Now that we are close to reaching the goal of all comics explained, I think it makes more sense to have a "featured explanation" which would serve as a sort of a marker for a complete and good explanation. Many comics, and almost all charts are not fully explained/not a good quality explanation.

* We should set up archival of discussion of the most discussed pages, like this one. Its not very pleasing to see comments from July 2012 still lying around here. It becomes hectic at some point.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to discuss. Cheers,
[[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.180|117.194.88.180]] 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:We dedicate this wiki to explaining xkcd, and we do actually have a featured comic feature; it changes every week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and we usually manage to fill out the explanation for it within an hour or so of it going up. The most recent comic tends to be the one that most people visiting the wiki care about, so we give it prime space on the front page so they can find it easily. xkcd updates frequently enough that there isn't really that big of a time window for us to feature an article on our front page. Also, we're a volunteer project with quite a bit less manpower than Wikipedia.
:We do need to archive talk pages though. Some of these are getting ridiculously long. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Davidy22. Archiving topics can be done by anyone, by moving resolved threads to the portal section's corresponding [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals|talk page]]. We could start with the threads marked "✓ Closed". [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:: The reason I asked for a "featured explanation" was because many of the comic explanations we currently have are sub-par, and we're almost at our initial goal of explaining all comics. A "featured explanation" would drive our editors towards the goal of having complete and good explanation towards all comics, and would allow us to know which explanations need elaboration.
:: P.S. My definition of complete explanation would be - To have a good explanation, To have all categories relevant, To link to any comics related and To explain any technical portions of the comic.
:: [[Special:Contributions/117.194.82.49|117.194.82.49]] 07:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::That message on the front page is going to link to all the pages marked by the incomplete template. If you find an unsatisfactory explanation, please mark it with <nowiki>{{incomplete}}</nowiki> '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: By my definition, I think all comics will be incomplete. An incomplete template will be focused more towards improving the worst explanations, while a featured one will be to improve the best ones. Since we already have the former, we should focus on the latter. Just my 2 cents. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.85.82|117.194.85.82]] 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

== Split the list of all comics ==

[[List of all comics]] is getting larger and larger, which makes it hard to read and hard to edit. How about splitting into parts, say [[List of all comics/1-1000]], [[List of all comics/1001-2000]], etc., or something to that effect? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

: Done. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.176|117.194.88.176]] 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
::Great job, thanks! [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
:::And I've added back [[List of all comics (full)]], which allows, for example, listing all comics by alphabetical order.[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 17:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

== Sidebar ads ==

''Moved from [[Talk:Main Page]] –– [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)''

Are they generating significant money? The ones I see are pretty sleazy looking and/or scammy - "Power Companies Hate this Device! - click here to break the laws of thermodynamics!" and "Debt relief program click here to lose more money". How much money are they generating? Can you set any selections to remove the sleazy ads? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Do we have sleazy sidebar ads? Since when? Thanks Google Chrome and AdBlock, I had no idea! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 07:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::People give 20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks on explainxkcd, and Jeff uses that money to buy a faster server with a hard drive that doesn't have less space than a public toilet with an elephant in it. It'd be really nice if you didn't turn on adblock, the money is appreciated. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::It's a question of me not turning it off specifically every time I visit this site. More importantly, I do think people would be more likely to click the "donate" if it weren't irrelevant ads around it. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Generating money is a great thing. Getting "20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks" is a bit unclear. Do the ads only generate revenue when clicked on? So EXKCD only gets money when someone actually falls for the sleazy ads? I know lots of people do not like Google - but at least their adsense stuff is relevant to the content of the website, which might generate some legitimate traffic for a legitimate advertiser.... [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Welllll, I didn't pick the ad supplier. You could bring it up with [[User talk:Jeff|Jeff]] if you want, I think he picked the ad provider on basis of which one had a mediawiki plugin or something. If you can link Jeff to a quick and easy way to put adsense on mediawiki, he should change it quickly enough. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::And I also gather then that they are only a temporary thing? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Until we can buy a server that doesn't poop itself every time a new comic is released, the ads are staying. If you want them to go away sooner, throw more money at Jeff. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The ads are crap. For sure. Wish I didn't have to run them, but I don't trust donations alone to hold up continually some better hosting. The ads really don't bring in that much $$$. I had google adsense before, but Google shutdown my adsense account for unnamed reason after 1 week. This new ad service is way sketchier. If you all think they don't have a place here, I'll ax 'em. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks for the info Jeff. How much ad money are we talking about? Is it calculated on how many ads are displayed or how many are clicked-through? How close to the goal is the server fund? How about a Kickstarter campaign for the server? $10 gets your name on a thankyou webpage or something like that. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: It ain't much, last I looked it was $2 or $3 in 2 weeks. I believe it is based on clicks, it is not nearly as clear as Google adsense. I'm not really interested in doing a Kickstarter. I think the donations will cover the initial start up, I just want to be able to cover the monthly costs as well. A few things are still up in the air. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you find a way to show the donations and ad income on the site, to make it transparent? ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: How about a donation amount that you'll take to turn it (the annoying unethical scummy ads) off for a year? Give me a dollar value and I might step up for the good of us all! [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== Economic transparency ==

I think this is very important: How can we make the donations and ad-income transparent, so that we all can see when and how much money is coming in, and how far we are from reaching our goal? – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds fine to me, I think I can put something together. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== Using <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> in transcripts to improve accuracy ==

In the transcripts, <nowiki>[[lines]]</nowiki> are being changed to [lines] in order to avoid auto-linking. Why not just surround these with <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> tags and avoid the problem entirely? --[[User:Epauley|Epauley]] ([[User talk:Epauley|talk]]) 04:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:Because it takes less time to type and single brackets are just as readable as double brackets to visitors. It's also a bit more readable in the editor. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:55, 16 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)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2013-06-22T17:20:55Z

178.98.31.27: /* Category: Flowcharts */

<noinclude>{{Community portal}}</noinclude>

== Add unexplained strips ==

At the moment, browsing through the explanations using the previous and next buttons is interrupted whenever there's an explanation missing.

I think adding a page with the strip fr all of those with a short message like "no one has explained this yet, want to give it a shot?" would make the wiki easier to browse through and will get more strips explained faster.

:I don't think that would happen. If suddenly it was much easier for people to skip over pages that had no explanation, I think they would do exactly that, skip right over it. On the same side of that coin, If suddenly there are no longer any red links on the [[List of all comics]] then everyone perusing that page assumes that all the comics have been explained and don't need to contribute any more. It's astonishing how quickly an [[589: Designated Drivers|embedded]] red link gets an explanation page created simply to get rid of the red link.

:Secondarily, ''many'' of the pages created recently aren't being created with their numerical and titular redirects. Without the numerical redirect, the comic template can't find that there is a previous/next comic to link to. Every once in a while somebody will go through and try to notice all the pages that don't have their redirects created but it's an unscientific process that only happens occasionally. If we could get every joe blow that comes in and vomits up a poorly done explanation to create the redirects I wouldn't be quite as annoyed at their lack of show-don't-tell-manship. But, since they can't be bothered to put the date in the comic template, I doubt we'll ever get people to create the redirects.

:'''TL;DR:''' No more red links, no more work gets done on the back catalog.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

== xplainkcd.com ==

When I first saw this site I thought it should definitely be at xplainkcd.com or at least redirect from that url {{unsigned|115.166.22.158|12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)}}

: I like that idea! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah! If it's possible, it would be cool! At least as a redirect. -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== Section style and usage ==

I am new here and I'm trying to get up to speed with the culture. I have a few questions about how and where to use sections (== this ==). I am more willing to go with (and enforce) whatever norms there are here, but I have not seen them actually discussed.

# '''Is it OK to create sections in Discussion pages?''' I have been told no, but there are many examples extant of this usage in this Wiki and indeed in Wikipedia.
# '''Section title case''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Acronyms Wikipedia's style guide] recommends sentence case, not title case. There are many title cased section headers here.
# '''Links''' I do not have a reference for this but it seems to me putting links in section code (== [[<nowiki>this</nowiki>]] == ) is bad form.

Last note -- it's understood if these bylaws have not yet been written. I can see that a few of you have made a huge personal investment to make this Wiki what it is today, and that is a credit to you all -- this is awesome! As a long-time aficionado of xkcd I applaud your work and look forward to further collaboration.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:As a general rule, we stick to the standard format that existing pages follow, with an optional trivia section below the transcript. Some zealous editors like to add other sections though, which tend to be for the most part unneeded or redundant. If something you want to add doesn't help to explain the comic in some way, but the inclusion of which would somehow still add to the page, *and* it doesn't fall under the trivia category, a new section is warranted. This isn't the case most of the time though, so editors usually fold the content of extraneous sections into "Explanation" or "Trivia." We have no policy on links in titles, and they're allowed so long as they are appropriate; the link is useful and can't be folded into the section itself. And we use title case for titles cuz it just makes sense. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:We generally do not (or at least, discourage) use sections on the talk/discussion pages for explanation pages. This is purely for looks. The comic discussion section of the explanation page looks/feels wrong if there are level 2 section breaks in the transclusion. Also, if the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents Table of Contents] starts showing up on a page, such as on [[Click and Drag]] the sections created on the talk page also show up in the TOC. This gets confusing, and this is why we prefer not to use them on explanation talk pages. Everywhere else we follow standard wiki format and do use sections on the discussion pages.

:Personally, I think that links in section titles looks wrong, but I choose not to be the dictator of style in this matter. :p

:Please feel free to make edits. The worst that happens is someone reverts your edit. If it's a big enough issue and/or you don't seem to be learning from what people are fixing about your edits someone will leave a comment on your talk page. That's it. We might leave a nasty-gram in the edit summary, but oh well. We only ban for malicious intent. Honestly working to better the wiki is good, even if sometimes we grumble about it.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Oh, I just looked at your talk page. I completely forgot that that happened. Don't worry about it. Learning the ropes is part of the experience. Do make edits, and if they're wrong, we'll nudge you in the right direction. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been moving some trivia sections to directly below the explanation, in order to make it more consistent, and easier to survey and maintain. Often the dividing line between trivia and explanation is not entirely clear, and in articles without a trivia section the end of the explanation very often contains trivia-like information. (e.g. [[1155: Kolmogorov Directions]]) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

== 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:Speculation|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)

== 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)

==New character==
As per [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]], the character with hair has appeared in quite a few comics now, and he's starting to become a recurring character. Shall we go ahead with inaugurating him into our list of regular characters, and what name shall we assign him? Current candidate names include Hairy and Harry. Anyone? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: I like Harry :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::Cos made a point in the discussion on [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]] that Hairy is directly descriptive, whereas Harry is not obvious to visitors. On the other hand, not all names are descriptive ([[Danish]]) and I think this wiki is entitled to create some xkcd-in-culture, and not just describe. And Harry is quite funny.
::I wonder: has [[Randall]] ever called him anything at all in the transcript? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, he's not named in a any official transcripts, but he's already called Harry in quite a few comic explanations. Then again, I do like having a more descriptive name for him. Shall we hold this up to a vote? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we should wait a little for a few more viewpoints to crop up. Also, can someone link to some more comics he's been featured in? I've got [[1028: Communication]], [[1027: Pickup Artist]] and [[1178: Pickup Artists]]. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I actually like what that anon said: ''Curly''. Second choice: Hairy (being descriptive, a la Black Hat, Beret, Cueball, etc.) While there's talk about in-culture, we've done that with the names Cueball, Beret, etc. It's my opinion that the only names that should be "real" proper names are those that are named in the comic. Megan, Miss Lenhart, etc. Danish (as is discussed below) isn't truly a proper name, but you could argue it's a meta-description (one attributed by Black hat.) So that's my vote: yes for '''Curly''' or '''Hairy''', no for Harry. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::That's right, [[Danish]] is not descriptive, but 1/ that name was suggested because the character [[515: No One Must Know|was called that way in the comic]], which is a tiny bit like a name given by the author (at least more than Harry which we have completely made up), and 2/ in that case it's hard to find a descriptive term: use something that revolves around her black hair (her only descriptive feature), and you easily mix up with [[Megan]]; the only graphical difference is that her hair is ''long'', but what kind of name can you make out of that?
:::For this new character, I suggest Hairy because it comes as the easy solution with every advantage: descriptive, easy to understand, and it's not ugly... I actually see no reason to resort to a made-up name like Harry.
:::[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

: '''Alright. So the discussion's been had, and the most oft recommended name appears to be Hairy. All in favor, say aye. If more than 1/3 of editors agree and we have more than 6 votes, Hairy it is.''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' [[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' to Hairy. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Harry would be a nice nod to the fact that he's actually hairy, but indeed it's better to avoid inside jokes. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. I'm convinced! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 17:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Hairy. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Hooray! We now have a [[:Category:Comics featuring Hairy]], with four pages already! Does anyone feel compelled to create "[[Hairy]]", with a brief description and a nice profile pic like the other characters? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

== Ambiguous characters ==

I've been thinking about the problem of the ambiguity of characters. "Is this really Cueball even though he has an eye and half a nose?", "This is very likely ''not'' x." "Darnit, these arn't Cueballs, these are Randall and his friends!", and so on. The character ambiguity is standard for xkcd (not less so in the early ones), and comes from the very loose or "free" way Randall uses his characters to be whatever he needs at the moment. It's simply often impossible for us to know whether he had e.g. "Cueball" or himself in mind, when drawing a particular comic (and I'd say: probably often both).

I want to suggest that we in general have a likewise rather loose policy towards including characters in the categories for the comics. So that reasonably ambiguous cases should be included in e.g. [[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]] (does she have a ponytail?) This is not because I believe this or that to really be this or that; I just don't believe in objective truth (here!). I feel that when doing research :) on a character, the borderline cases are often the most interesting ones, and you want to be able to find them through the "Comics featuring miss x"!

I came to think this through now, when I wanted to (and did) list two comics with [[Miss Lenhart]] (?) where she was drawn but not named. Any thoughts on this in general? Other case studies? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:My take has always been that [[Cueball]], for example, has not been a specific character. There is not ''a'' cueball, per se, distinct from any other cueball... indeed, there are several comics with several cueballs in-frame, and that is the point. I see the cueball character as a wildcard character (pun intended) ready to stand in for anybody (and ''not'' necessarily just Randall; I think those readers who suggest "this ''is'' Randall" are missing the point; he's way more META than that...) [[Megan]], while slightly less generic, still remains the female wild-card significant-other, while Curls seems to be a not-significant-other female used to illustrate a relationship that is transient. Other characters come and go, and when it's important to visually distinguish them from others in the frame, they're given additional characteristics, to wit [[Hairy]], [[Ponytail]], etc.
:Unfortunately, that viewpoint is not commonly held, so I daresay I'm in the minority here.
:-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

== Note at the top, about the server error ==

:''This thread was moved to [[MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice]]''

== 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)

== I've removed "add a comment!" from Discussion heading ==

This does move it to above the line, and the rule stops early. Undo my change if that's more bothering than when the TOC is displayed as "add a comment!Discussion"...

I don't know how to automatically treat level 2 headers as level 3. That may be why Discussion was a level 1 heading earlier.
[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:Actually I now noticed there was a short edit war at {{tl|comic discussion}} over whether it should be a level 1 heading, just for this reason. [[User:Waldir]] seems to have conceeded... [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

:: No edit war, hence no (intentional) concession. I reverted a change once, and didn't notice the change being re-implemented by another user. In any case, it is irrelevant now since we actively discourage using headers in talk pages precisely so that they don't display in the TOC for the main comic page, where the discussion page is transcluded to (see the discussion [[#Section style and usage|above]]). This might not scale well for comics that generate lots of discussion. It might be worth discussing our customs (and perhaps write them down somewhere) before performing such changes. What do others think? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

== Time: The Table ==

Right now on the page [[1190: Time]], we have a whole bunch of tables in the form image-time-hash. The tables take up heaps of vertical space and all have to be collapsed to even be remotely traversible. I propose that we aggregate all the images into one table after Time ends, like so:

{| class="wikitable plainlinks table-padding"
|-
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:00]]||01/00:00||[[Media:time.png|10:00]]||01/10:00||[[Media:time.png|20:00]]||01/20:00||[[Media:time.png|30:00]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:30]]||01/00:30||[[Media:time.png|10:30]]||01/10:30||[[Media:time.png|20:30]]||01/20:30||[[Media:time.png|30:30]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|}

The hash values aren't really a part of the comic, they're gibberish for the most part and they take up space that could be used to compact the table, as shown above. Even if we are conservative and make the table only five columns wide to account for smaller screens, we've divided scrolling time by five and eliminated much of the need for annoying collapsed tables and section headers for each day. Constructing the table shouldn't be particularly hard either, as all our current data is in nice regular tables with clear patterns that are easy enough to parse through.

I'm putting this here because the organization of the frame entries would be unintuitive and difficult to change from the edit window, which would make it a poor choice when we're still expanding it and don't even know how long the comic will continue for. It's merely a space-saving trick for after we're sure that the comic is over. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

:Oh and it'd be really nice if other people could also upload images if you're awake and a new one rolls by. There's gaps in the image record every time I wake up, and I dun likey. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
:Good work so far; go ahead make it better! :) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

==Featured Explanation, and Archival?==

* Wikipedia has featured content. Now that we are close to reaching the goal of all comics explained, I think it makes more sense to have a "featured explanation" which would serve as a sort of a marker for a complete and good explanation. Many comics, and almost all charts are not fully explained/not a good quality explanation.

* We should set up archival of discussion of the most discussed pages, like this one. Its not very pleasing to see comments from July 2012 still lying around here. It becomes hectic at some point.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to discuss. Cheers,
[[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.180|117.194.88.180]] 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:We dedicate this wiki to explaining xkcd, and we do actually have a featured comic feature; it changes every week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and we usually manage to fill out the explanation for it within an hour or so of it going up. The most recent comic tends to be the one that most people visiting the wiki care about, so we give it prime space on the front page so they can find it easily. xkcd updates frequently enough that there isn't really that big of a time window for us to feature an article on our front page. Also, we're a volunteer project with quite a bit less manpower than Wikipedia.
:We do need to archive talk pages though. Some of these are getting ridiculously long. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Davidy22. Archiving topics can be done by anyone, by moving resolved threads to the portal section's corresponding [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals|talk page]]. We could start with the threads marked "✓ Closed". [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:: The reason I asked for a "featured explanation" was because many of the comic explanations we currently have are sub-par, and we're almost at our initial goal of explaining all comics. A "featured explanation" would drive our editors towards the goal of having complete and good explanation towards all comics, and would allow us to know which explanations need elaboration.
:: P.S. My definition of complete explanation would be - To have a good explanation, To have all categories relevant, To link to any comics related and To explain any technical portions of the comic.
:: [[Special:Contributions/117.194.82.49|117.194.82.49]] 07:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::That message on the front page is going to link to all the pages marked by the incomplete template. If you find an unsatisfactory explanation, please mark it with <nowiki>{{incomplete}}</nowiki> '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: By my definition, I think all comics will be incomplete. An incomplete template will be focused more towards improving the worst explanations, while a featured one will be to improve the best ones. Since we already have the former, we should focus on the latter. Just my 2 cents. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.85.82|117.194.85.82]] 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

== Split the list of all comics ==

[[List of all comics]] is getting larger and larger, which makes it hard to read and hard to edit. How about splitting into parts, say [[List of all comics/1-1000]], [[List of all comics/1001-2000]], etc., or something to that effect? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

: Done. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.176|117.194.88.176]] 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
::Great job, thanks! [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
:::And I've added back [[List of all comics (full)]], which allows, for example, listing all comics by alphabetical order.[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 17:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

== Sidebar ads ==

''Moved from [[Talk:Main Page]] –– [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)''

Are they generating significant money? The ones I see are pretty sleazy looking and/or scammy - "Power Companies Hate this Device! - click here to break the laws of thermodynamics!" and "Debt relief program click here to lose more money". How much money are they generating? Can you set any selections to remove the sleazy ads? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Do we have sleazy sidebar ads? Since when? Thanks Google Chrome and AdBlock, I had no idea! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 07:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::People give 20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks on explainxkcd, and Jeff uses that money to buy a faster server with a hard drive that doesn't have less space than a public toilet with an elephant in it. It'd be really nice if you didn't turn on adblock, the money is appreciated. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::It's a question of me not turning it off specifically every time I visit this site. More importantly, I do think people would be more likely to click the "donate" if it weren't irrelevant ads around it. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Generating money is a great thing. Getting "20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks" is a bit unclear. Do the ads only generate revenue when clicked on? So EXKCD only gets money when someone actually falls for the sleazy ads? I know lots of people do not like Google - but at least their adsense stuff is relevant to the content of the website, which might generate some legitimate traffic for a legitimate advertiser.... [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Welllll, I didn't pick the ad supplier. You could bring it up with [[User talk:Jeff|Jeff]] if you want, I think he picked the ad provider on basis of which one had a mediawiki plugin or something. If you can link Jeff to a quick and easy way to put adsense on mediawiki, he should change it quickly enough. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::And I also gather then that they are only a temporary thing? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Until we can buy a server that doesn't poop itself every time a new comic is released, the ads are staying. If you want them to go away sooner, throw more money at Jeff. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The ads are crap. For sure. Wish I didn't have to run them, but I don't trust donations alone to hold up continually some better hosting. The ads really don't bring in that much $$$. I had google adsense before, but Google shutdown my adsense account for unnamed reason after 1 week. This new ad service is way sketchier. If you all think they don't have a place here, I'll ax 'em. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks for the info Jeff. How much ad money are we talking about? Is it calculated on how many ads are displayed or how many are clicked-through? How close to the goal is the server fund? How about a Kickstarter campaign for the server? $10 gets your name on a thankyou webpage or something like that. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: It ain't much, last I looked it was $2 or $3 in 2 weeks. I believe it is based on clicks, it is not nearly as clear as Google adsense. I'm not really interested in doing a Kickstarter. I think the donations will cover the initial start up, I just want to be able to cover the monthly costs as well. A few things are still up in the air. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you find a way to show the donations and ad income on the site, to make it transparent? ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: How about a donation amount that you'll take to turn it (the annoying unethical scummy ads) off for a year? Give me a dollar value and I might step up for the good of us all! [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== Economic transparency ==

I think this is very important: How can we make the donations and ad-income transparent, so that we all can see when and how much money is coming in, and how far we are from reaching our goal? – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds fine to me, I think I can put something together. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== Using <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> in transcripts to improve accuracy ==

In the transcripts, <nowiki>[[lines]]</nowiki> are being changed to [lines] in order to avoid auto-linking. Why not just surround these with <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> tags and avoid the problem entirely? --[[User:Epauley|Epauley]] ([[User talk:Epauley|talk]]) 04:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:Because it takes less time to type and single brackets are just as readable as double brackets to visitors. It's also a bit more readable in the editor. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:55, 16 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 *[[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)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2013-06-22T17:07:11Z

178.98.31.27: /* Category: Barred from Conferences */ Title change and waffle added. Thanks for listening.

<noinclude>{{Community portal}}</noinclude>

== Add unexplained strips ==

At the moment, browsing through the explanations using the previous and next buttons is interrupted whenever there's an explanation missing.

I think adding a page with the strip fr all of those with a short message like "no one has explained this yet, want to give it a shot?" would make the wiki easier to browse through and will get more strips explained faster.

:I don't think that would happen. If suddenly it was much easier for people to skip over pages that had no explanation, I think they would do exactly that, skip right over it. On the same side of that coin, If suddenly there are no longer any red links on the [[List of all comics]] then everyone perusing that page assumes that all the comics have been explained and don't need to contribute any more. It's astonishing how quickly an [[589: Designated Drivers|embedded]] red link gets an explanation page created simply to get rid of the red link.

:Secondarily, ''many'' of the pages created recently aren't being created with their numerical and titular redirects. Without the numerical redirect, the comic template can't find that there is a previous/next comic to link to. Every once in a while somebody will go through and try to notice all the pages that don't have their redirects created but it's an unscientific process that only happens occasionally. If we could get every joe blow that comes in and vomits up a poorly done explanation to create the redirects I wouldn't be quite as annoyed at their lack of show-don't-tell-manship. But, since they can't be bothered to put the date in the comic template, I doubt we'll ever get people to create the redirects.

:'''TL;DR:''' No more red links, no more work gets done on the back catalog.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

== xplainkcd.com ==

When I first saw this site I thought it should definitely be at xplainkcd.com or at least redirect from that url {{unsigned|115.166.22.158|12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)}}

: I like that idea! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah! If it's possible, it would be cool! At least as a redirect. -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== Section style and usage ==

I am new here and I'm trying to get up to speed with the culture. I have a few questions about how and where to use sections (== this ==). I am more willing to go with (and enforce) whatever norms there are here, but I have not seen them actually discussed.

# '''Is it OK to create sections in Discussion pages?''' I have been told no, but there are many examples extant of this usage in this Wiki and indeed in Wikipedia.
# '''Section title case''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Acronyms Wikipedia's style guide] recommends sentence case, not title case. There are many title cased section headers here.
# '''Links''' I do not have a reference for this but it seems to me putting links in section code (== [[<nowiki>this</nowiki>]] == ) is bad form.

Last note -- it's understood if these bylaws have not yet been written. I can see that a few of you have made a huge personal investment to make this Wiki what it is today, and that is a credit to you all -- this is awesome! As a long-time aficionado of xkcd I applaud your work and look forward to further collaboration.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:As a general rule, we stick to the standard format that existing pages follow, with an optional trivia section below the transcript. Some zealous editors like to add other sections though, which tend to be for the most part unneeded or redundant. If something you want to add doesn't help to explain the comic in some way, but the inclusion of which would somehow still add to the page, *and* it doesn't fall under the trivia category, a new section is warranted. This isn't the case most of the time though, so editors usually fold the content of extraneous sections into "Explanation" or "Trivia." We have no policy on links in titles, and they're allowed so long as they are appropriate; the link is useful and can't be folded into the section itself. And we use title case for titles cuz it just makes sense. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:We generally do not (or at least, discourage) use sections on the talk/discussion pages for explanation pages. This is purely for looks. The comic discussion section of the explanation page looks/feels wrong if there are level 2 section breaks in the transclusion. Also, if the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents Table of Contents] starts showing up on a page, such as on [[Click and Drag]] the sections created on the talk page also show up in the TOC. This gets confusing, and this is why we prefer not to use them on explanation talk pages. Everywhere else we follow standard wiki format and do use sections on the discussion pages.

:Personally, I think that links in section titles looks wrong, but I choose not to be the dictator of style in this matter. :p

:Please feel free to make edits. The worst that happens is someone reverts your edit. If it's a big enough issue and/or you don't seem to be learning from what people are fixing about your edits someone will leave a comment on your talk page. That's it. We might leave a nasty-gram in the edit summary, but oh well. We only ban for malicious intent. Honestly working to better the wiki is good, even if sometimes we grumble about it.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Oh, I just looked at your talk page. I completely forgot that that happened. Don't worry about it. Learning the ropes is part of the experience. Do make edits, and if they're wrong, we'll nudge you in the right direction. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been moving some trivia sections to directly below the explanation, in order to make it more consistent, and easier to survey and maintain. Often the dividing line between trivia and explanation is not entirely clear, and in articles without a trivia section the end of the explanation very often contains trivia-like information. (e.g. [[1155: Kolmogorov Directions]]) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

== 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:Speculation|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)

== 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)

==New character==
As per [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]], the character with hair has appeared in quite a few comics now, and he's starting to become a recurring character. Shall we go ahead with inaugurating him into our list of regular characters, and what name shall we assign him? Current candidate names include Hairy and Harry. Anyone? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: I like Harry :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::Cos made a point in the discussion on [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]] that Hairy is directly descriptive, whereas Harry is not obvious to visitors. On the other hand, not all names are descriptive ([[Danish]]) and I think this wiki is entitled to create some xkcd-in-culture, and not just describe. And Harry is quite funny.
::I wonder: has [[Randall]] ever called him anything at all in the transcript? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, he's not named in a any official transcripts, but he's already called Harry in quite a few comic explanations. Then again, I do like having a more descriptive name for him. Shall we hold this up to a vote? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we should wait a little for a few more viewpoints to crop up. Also, can someone link to some more comics he's been featured in? I've got [[1028: Communication]], [[1027: Pickup Artist]] and [[1178: Pickup Artists]]. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I actually like what that anon said: ''Curly''. Second choice: Hairy (being descriptive, a la Black Hat, Beret, Cueball, etc.) While there's talk about in-culture, we've done that with the names Cueball, Beret, etc. It's my opinion that the only names that should be "real" proper names are those that are named in the comic. Megan, Miss Lenhart, etc. Danish (as is discussed below) isn't truly a proper name, but you could argue it's a meta-description (one attributed by Black hat.) So that's my vote: yes for '''Curly''' or '''Hairy''', no for Harry. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::That's right, [[Danish]] is not descriptive, but 1/ that name was suggested because the character [[515: No One Must Know|was called that way in the comic]], which is a tiny bit like a name given by the author (at least more than Harry which we have completely made up), and 2/ in that case it's hard to find a descriptive term: use something that revolves around her black hair (her only descriptive feature), and you easily mix up with [[Megan]]; the only graphical difference is that her hair is ''long'', but what kind of name can you make out of that?
:::For this new character, I suggest Hairy because it comes as the easy solution with every advantage: descriptive, easy to understand, and it's not ugly... I actually see no reason to resort to a made-up name like Harry.
:::[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

: '''Alright. So the discussion's been had, and the most oft recommended name appears to be Hairy. All in favor, say aye. If more than 1/3 of editors agree and we have more than 6 votes, Hairy it is.''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' [[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' to Hairy. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Harry would be a nice nod to the fact that he's actually hairy, but indeed it's better to avoid inside jokes. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. I'm convinced! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 17:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Hairy. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Hooray! We now have a [[:Category:Comics featuring Hairy]], with four pages already! Does anyone feel compelled to create "[[Hairy]]", with a brief description and a nice profile pic like the other characters? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

== Ambiguous characters ==

I've been thinking about the problem of the ambiguity of characters. "Is this really Cueball even though he has an eye and half a nose?", "This is very likely ''not'' x." "Darnit, these arn't Cueballs, these are Randall and his friends!", and so on. The character ambiguity is standard for xkcd (not less so in the early ones), and comes from the very loose or "free" way Randall uses his characters to be whatever he needs at the moment. It's simply often impossible for us to know whether he had e.g. "Cueball" or himself in mind, when drawing a particular comic (and I'd say: probably often both).

I want to suggest that we in general have a likewise rather loose policy towards including characters in the categories for the comics. So that reasonably ambiguous cases should be included in e.g. [[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]] (does she have a ponytail?) This is not because I believe this or that to really be this or that; I just don't believe in objective truth (here!). I feel that when doing research :) on a character, the borderline cases are often the most interesting ones, and you want to be able to find them through the "Comics featuring miss x"!

I came to think this through now, when I wanted to (and did) list two comics with [[Miss Lenhart]] (?) where she was drawn but not named. Any thoughts on this in general? Other case studies? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:My take has always been that [[Cueball]], for example, has not been a specific character. There is not ''a'' cueball, per se, distinct from any other cueball... indeed, there are several comics with several cueballs in-frame, and that is the point. I see the cueball character as a wildcard character (pun intended) ready to stand in for anybody (and ''not'' necessarily just Randall; I think those readers who suggest "this ''is'' Randall" are missing the point; he's way more META than that...) [[Megan]], while slightly less generic, still remains the female wild-card significant-other, while Curls seems to be a not-significant-other female used to illustrate a relationship that is transient. Other characters come and go, and when it's important to visually distinguish them from others in the frame, they're given additional characteristics, to wit [[Hairy]], [[Ponytail]], etc.
:Unfortunately, that viewpoint is not commonly held, so I daresay I'm in the minority here.
:-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

== Note at the top, about the server error ==

:''This thread was moved to [[MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice]]''

== 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)

== I've removed "add a comment!" from Discussion heading ==

This does move it to above the line, and the rule stops early. Undo my change if that's more bothering than when the TOC is displayed as "add a comment!Discussion"...

I don't know how to automatically treat level 2 headers as level 3. That may be why Discussion was a level 1 heading earlier.
[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:Actually I now noticed there was a short edit war at {{tl|comic discussion}} over whether it should be a level 1 heading, just for this reason. [[User:Waldir]] seems to have conceeded... [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

:: No edit war, hence no (intentional) concession. I reverted a change once, and didn't notice the change being re-implemented by another user. In any case, it is irrelevant now since we actively discourage using headers in talk pages precisely so that they don't display in the TOC for the main comic page, where the discussion page is transcluded to (see the discussion [[#Section style and usage|above]]). This might not scale well for comics that generate lots of discussion. It might be worth discussing our customs (and perhaps write them down somewhere) before performing such changes. What do others think? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

== Time: The Table ==

Right now on the page [[1190: Time]], we have a whole bunch of tables in the form image-time-hash. The tables take up heaps of vertical space and all have to be collapsed to even be remotely traversible. I propose that we aggregate all the images into one table after Time ends, like so:

{| class="wikitable plainlinks table-padding"
|-
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:00]]||01/00:00||[[Media:time.png|10:00]]||01/10:00||[[Media:time.png|20:00]]||01/20:00||[[Media:time.png|30:00]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:30]]||01/00:30||[[Media:time.png|10:30]]||01/10:30||[[Media:time.png|20:30]]||01/20:30||[[Media:time.png|30:30]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|}

The hash values aren't really a part of the comic, they're gibberish for the most part and they take up space that could be used to compact the table, as shown above. Even if we are conservative and make the table only five columns wide to account for smaller screens, we've divided scrolling time by five and eliminated much of the need for annoying collapsed tables and section headers for each day. Constructing the table shouldn't be particularly hard either, as all our current data is in nice regular tables with clear patterns that are easy enough to parse through.

I'm putting this here because the organization of the frame entries would be unintuitive and difficult to change from the edit window, which would make it a poor choice when we're still expanding it and don't even know how long the comic will continue for. It's merely a space-saving trick for after we're sure that the comic is over. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

:Oh and it'd be really nice if other people could also upload images if you're awake and a new one rolls by. There's gaps in the image record every time I wake up, and I dun likey. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
:Good work so far; go ahead make it better! :) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

==Featured Explanation, and Archival?==

* Wikipedia has featured content. Now that we are close to reaching the goal of all comics explained, I think it makes more sense to have a "featured explanation" which would serve as a sort of a marker for a complete and good explanation. Many comics, and almost all charts are not fully explained/not a good quality explanation.

* We should set up archival of discussion of the most discussed pages, like this one. Its not very pleasing to see comments from July 2012 still lying around here. It becomes hectic at some point.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to discuss. Cheers,
[[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.180|117.194.88.180]] 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:We dedicate this wiki to explaining xkcd, and we do actually have a featured comic feature; it changes every week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and we usually manage to fill out the explanation for it within an hour or so of it going up. The most recent comic tends to be the one that most people visiting the wiki care about, so we give it prime space on the front page so they can find it easily. xkcd updates frequently enough that there isn't really that big of a time window for us to feature an article on our front page. Also, we're a volunteer project with quite a bit less manpower than Wikipedia.
:We do need to archive talk pages though. Some of these are getting ridiculously long. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Davidy22. Archiving topics can be done by anyone, by moving resolved threads to the portal section's corresponding [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals|talk page]]. We could start with the threads marked "✓ Closed". [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:: The reason I asked for a "featured explanation" was because many of the comic explanations we currently have are sub-par, and we're almost at our initial goal of explaining all comics. A "featured explanation" would drive our editors towards the goal of having complete and good explanation towards all comics, and would allow us to know which explanations need elaboration.
:: P.S. My definition of complete explanation would be - To have a good explanation, To have all categories relevant, To link to any comics related and To explain any technical portions of the comic.
:: [[Special:Contributions/117.194.82.49|117.194.82.49]] 07:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::That message on the front page is going to link to all the pages marked by the incomplete template. If you find an unsatisfactory explanation, please mark it with <nowiki>{{incomplete}}</nowiki> '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: By my definition, I think all comics will be incomplete. An incomplete template will be focused more towards improving the worst explanations, while a featured one will be to improve the best ones. Since we already have the former, we should focus on the latter. Just my 2 cents. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.85.82|117.194.85.82]] 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

== Split the list of all comics ==

[[List of all comics]] is getting larger and larger, which makes it hard to read and hard to edit. How about splitting into parts, say [[List of all comics/1-1000]], [[List of all comics/1001-2000]], etc., or something to that effect? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

: Done. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.176|117.194.88.176]] 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
::Great job, thanks! [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
:::And I've added back [[List of all comics (full)]], which allows, for example, listing all comics by alphabetical order.[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 17:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

== Sidebar ads ==

''Moved from [[Talk:Main Page]] –– [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)''

Are they generating significant money? The ones I see are pretty sleazy looking and/or scammy - "Power Companies Hate this Device! - click here to break the laws of thermodynamics!" and "Debt relief program click here to lose more money". How much money are they generating? Can you set any selections to remove the sleazy ads? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Do we have sleazy sidebar ads? Since when? Thanks Google Chrome and AdBlock, I had no idea! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 07:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::People give 20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks on explainxkcd, and Jeff uses that money to buy a faster server with a hard drive that doesn't have less space than a public toilet with an elephant in it. It'd be really nice if you didn't turn on adblock, the money is appreciated. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::It's a question of me not turning it off specifically every time I visit this site. More importantly, I do think people would be more likely to click the "donate" if it weren't irrelevant ads around it. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Generating money is a great thing. Getting "20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks" is a bit unclear. Do the ads only generate revenue when clicked on? So EXKCD only gets money when someone actually falls for the sleazy ads? I know lots of people do not like Google - but at least their adsense stuff is relevant to the content of the website, which might generate some legitimate traffic for a legitimate advertiser.... [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Welllll, I didn't pick the ad supplier. You could bring it up with [[User talk:Jeff|Jeff]] if you want, I think he picked the ad provider on basis of which one had a mediawiki plugin or something. If you can link Jeff to a quick and easy way to put adsense on mediawiki, he should change it quickly enough. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::And I also gather then that they are only a temporary thing? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Until we can buy a server that doesn't poop itself every time a new comic is released, the ads are staying. If you want them to go away sooner, throw more money at Jeff. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The ads are crap. For sure. Wish I didn't have to run them, but I don't trust donations alone to hold up continually some better hosting. The ads really don't bring in that much $$$. I had google adsense before, but Google shutdown my adsense account for unnamed reason after 1 week. This new ad service is way sketchier. If you all think they don't have a place here, I'll ax 'em. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks for the info Jeff. How much ad money are we talking about? Is it calculated on how many ads are displayed or how many are clicked-through? How close to the goal is the server fund? How about a Kickstarter campaign for the server? $10 gets your name on a thankyou webpage or something like that. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: It ain't much, last I looked it was $2 or $3 in 2 weeks. I believe it is based on clicks, it is not nearly as clear as Google adsense. I'm not really interested in doing a Kickstarter. I think the donations will cover the initial start up, I just want to be able to cover the monthly costs as well. A few things are still up in the air. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you find a way to show the donations and ad income on the site, to make it transparent? ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: How about a donation amount that you'll take to turn it (the annoying unethical scummy ads) off for a year? Give me a dollar value and I might step up for the good of us all! [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== Economic transparency ==

I think this is very important: How can we make the donations and ad-income transparent, so that we all can see when and how much money is coming in, and how far we are from reaching our goal? – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds fine to me, I think I can put something together. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== Using <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> in transcripts to improve accuracy ==

In the transcripts, <nowiki>[[lines]]</nowiki> are being changed to [lines] in order to avoid auto-linking. Why not just surround these with <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> tags and avoid the problem entirely? --[[User:Epauley|Epauley]] ([[User talk:Epauley|talk]]) 04:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:Because it takes less time to type and single brackets are just as readable as double brackets to visitors. It's also a bit more readable in the editor. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:55, 16 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 *[[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)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2013-06-22T16:41:56Z

178.98.31.27: /* Category: Barred from Conferences */ new section

<noinclude>{{Community portal}}</noinclude>

== Add unexplained strips ==

At the moment, browsing through the explanations using the previous and next buttons is interrupted whenever there's an explanation missing.

I think adding a page with the strip fr all of those with a short message like "no one has explained this yet, want to give it a shot?" would make the wiki easier to browse through and will get more strips explained faster.

:I don't think that would happen. If suddenly it was much easier for people to skip over pages that had no explanation, I think they would do exactly that, skip right over it. On the same side of that coin, If suddenly there are no longer any red links on the [[List of all comics]] then everyone perusing that page assumes that all the comics have been explained and don't need to contribute any more. It's astonishing how quickly an [[589: Designated Drivers|embedded]] red link gets an explanation page created simply to get rid of the red link.

:Secondarily, ''many'' of the pages created recently aren't being created with their numerical and titular redirects. Without the numerical redirect, the comic template can't find that there is a previous/next comic to link to. Every once in a while somebody will go through and try to notice all the pages that don't have their redirects created but it's an unscientific process that only happens occasionally. If we could get every joe blow that comes in and vomits up a poorly done explanation to create the redirects I wouldn't be quite as annoyed at their lack of show-don't-tell-manship. But, since they can't be bothered to put the date in the comic template, I doubt we'll ever get people to create the redirects.

:'''TL;DR:''' No more red links, no more work gets done on the back catalog.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

== xplainkcd.com ==

When I first saw this site I thought it should definitely be at xplainkcd.com or at least redirect from that url {{unsigned|115.166.22.158|12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)}}

: I like that idea! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah! If it's possible, it would be cool! At least as a redirect. -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== Section style and usage ==

I am new here and I'm trying to get up to speed with the culture. I have a few questions about how and where to use sections (== this ==). I am more willing to go with (and enforce) whatever norms there are here, but I have not seen them actually discussed.

# '''Is it OK to create sections in Discussion pages?''' I have been told no, but there are many examples extant of this usage in this Wiki and indeed in Wikipedia.
# '''Section title case''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Acronyms Wikipedia's style guide] recommends sentence case, not title case. There are many title cased section headers here.
# '''Links''' I do not have a reference for this but it seems to me putting links in section code (== [[<nowiki>this</nowiki>]] == ) is bad form.

Last note -- it's understood if these bylaws have not yet been written. I can see that a few of you have made a huge personal investment to make this Wiki what it is today, and that is a credit to you all -- this is awesome! As a long-time aficionado of xkcd I applaud your work and look forward to further collaboration.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:As a general rule, we stick to the standard format that existing pages follow, with an optional trivia section below the transcript. Some zealous editors like to add other sections though, which tend to be for the most part unneeded or redundant. If something you want to add doesn't help to explain the comic in some way, but the inclusion of which would somehow still add to the page, *and* it doesn't fall under the trivia category, a new section is warranted. This isn't the case most of the time though, so editors usually fold the content of extraneous sections into "Explanation" or "Trivia." We have no policy on links in titles, and they're allowed so long as they are appropriate; the link is useful and can't be folded into the section itself. And we use title case for titles cuz it just makes sense. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:We generally do not (or at least, discourage) use sections on the talk/discussion pages for explanation pages. This is purely for looks. The comic discussion section of the explanation page looks/feels wrong if there are level 2 section breaks in the transclusion. Also, if the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents Table of Contents] starts showing up on a page, such as on [[Click and Drag]] the sections created on the talk page also show up in the TOC. This gets confusing, and this is why we prefer not to use them on explanation talk pages. Everywhere else we follow standard wiki format and do use sections on the discussion pages.

:Personally, I think that links in section titles looks wrong, but I choose not to be the dictator of style in this matter. :p

:Please feel free to make edits. The worst that happens is someone reverts your edit. If it's a big enough issue and/or you don't seem to be learning from what people are fixing about your edits someone will leave a comment on your talk page. That's it. We might leave a nasty-gram in the edit summary, but oh well. We only ban for malicious intent. Honestly working to better the wiki is good, even if sometimes we grumble about it.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Oh, I just looked at your talk page. I completely forgot that that happened. Don't worry about it. Learning the ropes is part of the experience. Do make edits, and if they're wrong, we'll nudge you in the right direction. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been moving some trivia sections to directly below the explanation, in order to make it more consistent, and easier to survey and maintain. Often the dividing line between trivia and explanation is not entirely clear, and in articles without a trivia section the end of the explanation very often contains trivia-like information. (e.g. [[1155: Kolmogorov Directions]]) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

== 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:Speculation|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)

== 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)

==New character==
As per [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]], the character with hair has appeared in quite a few comics now, and he's starting to become a recurring character. Shall we go ahead with inaugurating him into our list of regular characters, and what name shall we assign him? Current candidate names include Hairy and Harry. Anyone? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: I like Harry :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::Cos made a point in the discussion on [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]] that Hairy is directly descriptive, whereas Harry is not obvious to visitors. On the other hand, not all names are descriptive ([[Danish]]) and I think this wiki is entitled to create some xkcd-in-culture, and not just describe. And Harry is quite funny.
::I wonder: has [[Randall]] ever called him anything at all in the transcript? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, he's not named in a any official transcripts, but he's already called Harry in quite a few comic explanations. Then again, I do like having a more descriptive name for him. Shall we hold this up to a vote? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we should wait a little for a few more viewpoints to crop up. Also, can someone link to some more comics he's been featured in? I've got [[1028: Communication]], [[1027: Pickup Artist]] and [[1178: Pickup Artists]]. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I actually like what that anon said: ''Curly''. Second choice: Hairy (being descriptive, a la Black Hat, Beret, Cueball, etc.) While there's talk about in-culture, we've done that with the names Cueball, Beret, etc. It's my opinion that the only names that should be "real" proper names are those that are named in the comic. Megan, Miss Lenhart, etc. Danish (as is discussed below) isn't truly a proper name, but you could argue it's a meta-description (one attributed by Black hat.) So that's my vote: yes for '''Curly''' or '''Hairy''', no for Harry. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::That's right, [[Danish]] is not descriptive, but 1/ that name was suggested because the character [[515: No One Must Know|was called that way in the comic]], which is a tiny bit like a name given by the author (at least more than Harry which we have completely made up), and 2/ in that case it's hard to find a descriptive term: use something that revolves around her black hair (her only descriptive feature), and you easily mix up with [[Megan]]; the only graphical difference is that her hair is ''long'', but what kind of name can you make out of that?
:::For this new character, I suggest Hairy because it comes as the easy solution with every advantage: descriptive, easy to understand, and it's not ugly... I actually see no reason to resort to a made-up name like Harry.
:::[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

: '''Alright. So the discussion's been had, and the most oft recommended name appears to be Hairy. All in favor, say aye. If more than 1/3 of editors agree and we have more than 6 votes, Hairy it is.''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' [[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' to Hairy. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Harry would be a nice nod to the fact that he's actually hairy, but indeed it's better to avoid inside jokes. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. I'm convinced! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 17:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Hairy. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Hooray! We now have a [[:Category:Comics featuring Hairy]], with four pages already! Does anyone feel compelled to create "[[Hairy]]", with a brief description and a nice profile pic like the other characters? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

== Ambiguous characters ==

I've been thinking about the problem of the ambiguity of characters. "Is this really Cueball even though he has an eye and half a nose?", "This is very likely ''not'' x." "Darnit, these arn't Cueballs, these are Randall and his friends!", and so on. The character ambiguity is standard for xkcd (not less so in the early ones), and comes from the very loose or "free" way Randall uses his characters to be whatever he needs at the moment. It's simply often impossible for us to know whether he had e.g. "Cueball" or himself in mind, when drawing a particular comic (and I'd say: probably often both).

I want to suggest that we in general have a likewise rather loose policy towards including characters in the categories for the comics. So that reasonably ambiguous cases should be included in e.g. [[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]] (does she have a ponytail?) This is not because I believe this or that to really be this or that; I just don't believe in objective truth (here!). I feel that when doing research :) on a character, the borderline cases are often the most interesting ones, and you want to be able to find them through the "Comics featuring miss x"!

I came to think this through now, when I wanted to (and did) list two comics with [[Miss Lenhart]] (?) where she was drawn but not named. Any thoughts on this in general? Other case studies? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:My take has always been that [[Cueball]], for example, has not been a specific character. There is not ''a'' cueball, per se, distinct from any other cueball... indeed, there are several comics with several cueballs in-frame, and that is the point. I see the cueball character as a wildcard character (pun intended) ready to stand in for anybody (and ''not'' necessarily just Randall; I think those readers who suggest "this ''is'' Randall" are missing the point; he's way more META than that...) [[Megan]], while slightly less generic, still remains the female wild-card significant-other, while Curls seems to be a not-significant-other female used to illustrate a relationship that is transient. Other characters come and go, and when it's important to visually distinguish them from others in the frame, they're given additional characteristics, to wit [[Hairy]], [[Ponytail]], etc.
:Unfortunately, that viewpoint is not commonly held, so I daresay I'm in the minority here.
:-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

== Note at the top, about the server error ==

:''This thread was moved to [[MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice]]''

== 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)

== I've removed "add a comment!" from Discussion heading ==

This does move it to above the line, and the rule stops early. Undo my change if that's more bothering than when the TOC is displayed as "add a comment!Discussion"...

I don't know how to automatically treat level 2 headers as level 3. That may be why Discussion was a level 1 heading earlier.
[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:Actually I now noticed there was a short edit war at {{tl|comic discussion}} over whether it should be a level 1 heading, just for this reason. [[User:Waldir]] seems to have conceeded... [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

:: No edit war, hence no (intentional) concession. I reverted a change once, and didn't notice the change being re-implemented by another user. In any case, it is irrelevant now since we actively discourage using headers in talk pages precisely so that they don't display in the TOC for the main comic page, where the discussion page is transcluded to (see the discussion [[#Section style and usage|above]]). This might not scale well for comics that generate lots of discussion. It might be worth discussing our customs (and perhaps write them down somewhere) before performing such changes. What do others think? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

== Time: The Table ==

Right now on the page [[1190: Time]], we have a whole bunch of tables in the form image-time-hash. The tables take up heaps of vertical space and all have to be collapsed to even be remotely traversible. I propose that we aggregate all the images into one table after Time ends, like so:

{| class="wikitable plainlinks table-padding"
|-
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:00]]||01/00:00||[[Media:time.png|10:00]]||01/10:00||[[Media:time.png|20:00]]||01/20:00||[[Media:time.png|30:00]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:30]]||01/00:30||[[Media:time.png|10:30]]||01/10:30||[[Media:time.png|20:30]]||01/20:30||[[Media:time.png|30:30]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|}

The hash values aren't really a part of the comic, they're gibberish for the most part and they take up space that could be used to compact the table, as shown above. Even if we are conservative and make the table only five columns wide to account for smaller screens, we've divided scrolling time by five and eliminated much of the need for annoying collapsed tables and section headers for each day. Constructing the table shouldn't be particularly hard either, as all our current data is in nice regular tables with clear patterns that are easy enough to parse through.

I'm putting this here because the organization of the frame entries would be unintuitive and difficult to change from the edit window, which would make it a poor choice when we're still expanding it and don't even know how long the comic will continue for. It's merely a space-saving trick for after we're sure that the comic is over. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

:Oh and it'd be really nice if other people could also upload images if you're awake and a new one rolls by. There's gaps in the image record every time I wake up, and I dun likey. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
:Good work so far; go ahead make it better! :) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

==Featured Explanation, and Archival?==

* Wikipedia has featured content. Now that we are close to reaching the goal of all comics explained, I think it makes more sense to have a "featured explanation" which would serve as a sort of a marker for a complete and good explanation. Many comics, and almost all charts are not fully explained/not a good quality explanation.

* We should set up archival of discussion of the most discussed pages, like this one. Its not very pleasing to see comments from July 2012 still lying around here. It becomes hectic at some point.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to discuss. Cheers,
[[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.180|117.194.88.180]] 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:We dedicate this wiki to explaining xkcd, and we do actually have a featured comic feature; it changes every week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and we usually manage to fill out the explanation for it within an hour or so of it going up. The most recent comic tends to be the one that most people visiting the wiki care about, so we give it prime space on the front page so they can find it easily. xkcd updates frequently enough that there isn't really that big of a time window for us to feature an article on our front page. Also, we're a volunteer project with quite a bit less manpower than Wikipedia.
:We do need to archive talk pages though. Some of these are getting ridiculously long. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Davidy22. Archiving topics can be done by anyone, by moving resolved threads to the portal section's corresponding [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals|talk page]]. We could start with the threads marked "✓ Closed". [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:: The reason I asked for a "featured explanation" was because many of the comic explanations we currently have are sub-par, and we're almost at our initial goal of explaining all comics. A "featured explanation" would drive our editors towards the goal of having complete and good explanation towards all comics, and would allow us to know which explanations need elaboration.
:: P.S. My definition of complete explanation would be - To have a good explanation, To have all categories relevant, To link to any comics related and To explain any technical portions of the comic.
:: [[Special:Contributions/117.194.82.49|117.194.82.49]] 07:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::That message on the front page is going to link to all the pages marked by the incomplete template. If you find an unsatisfactory explanation, please mark it with <nowiki>{{incomplete}}</nowiki> '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: By my definition, I think all comics will be incomplete. An incomplete template will be focused more towards improving the worst explanations, while a featured one will be to improve the best ones. Since we already have the former, we should focus on the latter. Just my 2 cents. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.85.82|117.194.85.82]] 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

== Split the list of all comics ==

[[List of all comics]] is getting larger and larger, which makes it hard to read and hard to edit. How about splitting into parts, say [[List of all comics/1-1000]], [[List of all comics/1001-2000]], etc., or something to that effect? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

: Done. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.176|117.194.88.176]] 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
::Great job, thanks! [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
:::And I've added back [[List of all comics (full)]], which allows, for example, listing all comics by alphabetical order.[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 17:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

== Sidebar ads ==

''Moved from [[Talk:Main Page]] –– [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)''

Are they generating significant money? The ones I see are pretty sleazy looking and/or scammy - "Power Companies Hate this Device! - click here to break the laws of thermodynamics!" and "Debt relief program click here to lose more money". How much money are they generating? Can you set any selections to remove the sleazy ads? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Do we have sleazy sidebar ads? Since when? Thanks Google Chrome and AdBlock, I had no idea! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 07:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::People give 20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks on explainxkcd, and Jeff uses that money to buy a faster server with a hard drive that doesn't have less space than a public toilet with an elephant in it. It'd be really nice if you didn't turn on adblock, the money is appreciated. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::It's a question of me not turning it off specifically every time I visit this site. More importantly, I do think people would be more likely to click the "donate" if it weren't irrelevant ads around it. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Generating money is a great thing. Getting "20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks" is a bit unclear. Do the ads only generate revenue when clicked on? So EXKCD only gets money when someone actually falls for the sleazy ads? I know lots of people do not like Google - but at least their adsense stuff is relevant to the content of the website, which might generate some legitimate traffic for a legitimate advertiser.... [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Welllll, I didn't pick the ad supplier. You could bring it up with [[User talk:Jeff|Jeff]] if you want, I think he picked the ad provider on basis of which one had a mediawiki plugin or something. If you can link Jeff to a quick and easy way to put adsense on mediawiki, he should change it quickly enough. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::And I also gather then that they are only a temporary thing? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Until we can buy a server that doesn't poop itself every time a new comic is released, the ads are staying. If you want them to go away sooner, throw more money at Jeff. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The ads are crap. For sure. Wish I didn't have to run them, but I don't trust donations alone to hold up continually some better hosting. The ads really don't bring in that much $$$. I had google adsense before, but Google shutdown my adsense account for unnamed reason after 1 week. This new ad service is way sketchier. If you all think they don't have a place here, I'll ax 'em. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks for the info Jeff. How much ad money are we talking about? Is it calculated on how many ads are displayed or how many are clicked-through? How close to the goal is the server fund? How about a Kickstarter campaign for the server? $10 gets your name on a thankyou webpage or something like that. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: It ain't much, last I looked it was $2 or $3 in 2 weeks. I believe it is based on clicks, it is not nearly as clear as Google adsense. I'm not really interested in doing a Kickstarter. I think the donations will cover the initial start up, I just want to be able to cover the monthly costs as well. A few things are still up in the air. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you find a way to show the donations and ad income on the site, to make it transparent? ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: How about a donation amount that you'll take to turn it (the annoying unethical scummy ads) off for a year? Give me a dollar value and I might step up for the good of us all! [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== Economic transparency ==

I think this is very important: How can we make the donations and ad-income transparent, so that we all can see when and how much money is coming in, and how far we are from reaching our goal? – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds fine to me, I think I can put something together. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== Using <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> in transcripts to improve accuracy ==

In the transcripts, <nowiki>[[lines]]</nowiki> are being changed to [lines] in order to avoid auto-linking. Why not just surround these with <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> tags and avoid the problem entirely? --[[User:Epauley|Epauley]] ([[User talk:Epauley|talk]]) 04:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:Because it takes less time to type and single brackets are just as readable as double brackets to visitors. It's also a bit more readable in the editor. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

== Category: Barred 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)

Talk:Main Page

2013-06-22T16:27:52Z

178.98.31.27: /* A point of confusion */

{{notice|This page is for discussion of the [[Main Page]] itself. Other issues probably belong at the [[Explain XKCD:Community portal]].}}

As a new user, I think the first page is very important. So I thought why not begin a discussion here what to have on the first page every user visits.--[[User:Relic|Relic]] ([[User talk:Relic|talk]]) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT) Re-signed here - b/c I broke the comment in two when I added the "List of comics" header. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 23:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

==List of comics==
I was thinking of having a quick link to the list of comics that is explained. Right know, it took me a while to even see any of them. Eventually I found the "List All Pages" (found it in Special pages) where I could find the comics that have been explained. What do you think?
:A category tag will do that for you automatically. Having a list of comics indexed by its number would be a little different.--[[User:Relic|Relic]] ([[User talk:Relic|talk]]) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
::Sounds like a great list - I ''think'' it'd have to be manually maintained until/unless we get someone who knows how to make a bot update it. Categories will be useful, but they only work if someone added the category to the page in the first place. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 07:21, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::A (somewhat) related question - should [[:Category:Comics]] be sorted alphabetically or by comic number? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 07:43, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
::::I think [[:Category:Comics]] should be sorted by comic number. If you are looking for a specific comic, you will use the search field. Is there a way to make that happen? --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 08:11, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::They are two different functions. For the former, instead of adding <nowiki>[[Category:Comics]]</nowiki>, add, say, <nowiki>[[Category:Comics|1]]</nowiki>. For the second, we can create redirects. Normally, I'd say just make sure the search term was in the article text, but since numbers are going to be use for other purposes than just comic titles, it may be better to create [[1]] and [[Comic 1]] as redirects to the relevant articles right off the bat. --08:24, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::We could also have a comic-list template on the Main Page, I suppose, or perhaps two - one for number and one for name? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 08:54, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Here's what I was thinking of for that: {{tl|Comics navbox}} Thoughts? ''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]
:(outdent) It's ugly, but a sortable wikitable [[User:SurturZ/sandbox|(click here for example)]] could be used as a checklist to see what has been uploaded and what hasn't. What's the project namespace here, anyway (analogue of "WP:")? --[[User:SurturZ|SurturZ]] ([[User talk:SurturZ|talk]]) 03:04, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
:OK, I've found a way to get all the titles of the comics, so I was confident enough to create <big>[[Explain XKCD:Checklist]]</big> which can be used to fill in the gaps. --[[User:SurturZ|SurturZ]] ([[User talk:SurturZ|talk]]) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::I'm liking the checklist! That should do quite nicely as a "tool for editors". (I'm linking to it at the Community Portal). We still need the "template for readers." Did you think {{tl|Comics navbox}} was on the right track or should we do something else for that? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 20:09, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Better idea - I'm throwing it directly onto the Main Page. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 20:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Admin list==
You can find a system-accurate list of admins [{{canonicalurl:Special:ListUsers|group=sysop}} here], so that might good to share, along with the manual list. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 07:13, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:Added to page. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 08:10, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
::That's exactly what I wanted, but couldn't find the auto page for it. I knew it was somewhere. I don't see any reason to keep the link to the manual page. Do you? --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 08:11, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Not unless you want it. I'll remove it. Should I add the similar link for 'crats or is that unnecessary at this point? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 08:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
::::To be honest, I have no idea what the Burecrats role does. Might be unnecessary now but helpful in the future? --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 11:16, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Bureaucrats can turn other users into administrators (or indeed, other bureaucrats). That privilege isn't available to ordinary administrators. I'd keep it to yourself for the time being. :-) --[[User:Yirba|Yirba]] ([[User talk:Yirba|talk]]) 17:39, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::You can actually see a technical list of which rights each group confers at [[Special:ListGroupRights]]. As the wiki grows, you might want to spin off a few, such as the ability to grant rollbacker and autopatrolled, to admins as some other wikis have. But for the time being, at least, there's really no reason for the wiki to have more than one 'crat. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 17:07, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Community portal ==

I've created the [[Explain XKCD:Community portal]] as a tools/help page. If that's not what you want, feel free to change/move/whatever it, but I thought it'd be nice to save this page for discussion of the Main Page and discuss the wiki as a whole/ask for help there. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 08:36, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== Direct link to latest comic ==

There should be a direct link to the latest comic at the top of the Main page. A nice thing about going to explainxkcd.com was that the latest comic is right there at the top. For those changing their default link to the wiki, there should be an easy "Latest Comic" link that quickly takes them there. I'm sure some folks actually skip xkcd.com and come directly here instead to read the latest offering from Randall. They shouldn't have to search for it.
[[User:Christopher Foxx|- CFoxx]] ([[User talk:Christopher Foxx|talk]]) 11:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

: Maybe the page [[latest]] should redirect to the most recent comic? Could that be taken care of by some sort of script/template so it doesn't have to be manually updated? Should each explination page also have "next", "previous", "random", "first" and "latest" links, possibly also generated automatically via scripts/templates? Additionally, shouldn't the number page be the canonical one? It seems like [[Internal monologue]] should redirect to [[1089]] rather than the other way around - certainly it would make a bunch of scripting types of things a lot easier. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::If you wanted, we could even use wiki-magic to show the title of the page as the Comic name, but the URL as the number - in order to parallel the actual XKCD website. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 17:09, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
:: Shouldn't there be a way to programmatically find the comic with the highest number that has a page with content? That would work as long as no one puts future comic pages up. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::It's all sounding like folks are over-complicating something quite easy. All I'm suggesting is a prominent link to http://www.xkcd.com/. No need, I think, to list which number the latest is, or include the next/last/random buttons, etc. [[User:Christopher Foxx|- CFoxx]] ([[User talk:Christopher Foxx|talk]]) 11:41, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Oh. We've got that, now, in the sidebar - labeled as "XKCD." I do think that having an internal link to the latest (explained) comic would be a great thing, though. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 16:36, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

You can transclude the latest comic on the main page like this: <nowiki>{{:pagename}} e.g. {{:Internal_monologue}} </nowiki>--[[User:SurturZ|SurturZ]] ([[User talk:SurturZ|talk]]) 00:25, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
: I've started with just a manual link to the latest comic. Ideally it will be automatic, but a manual link will work for now as I've had quite a few people ask for it. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Transclusion of the latest comic is great. Someone with the right permissions should add (for instance on the top-right corner of the grey transclusion area) a link to edit the corresponding wiki page, so that people seeing something they could add would feel invited to do so (wiki style). In my opinion this would be a good way to improve the quality of the user-generated explanations.
Also, all the "XKCD"s in the "New here?" section should be converted to the lowercase "xkcd"...
[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 14:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
:Good points. I've done both. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 15:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Call me dumb, but... You've got a link called "prev" that goes to the explaination for the previous comic. Then a link called "comic #42" but that goes to xkcd. And then a smaller, less prominent link called "go to this comic" that doesn't go to the comic but to its explaination. Anyone else think that's a little back-to-front? [[User:Zootle|Zootle]] ([[User talk:Zootle|talk]]) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
:OK, you're dumb :-). The standard template for an explanation page includes the header with "Prev", "Comic # (date)", and "Next" links. If we don't have explanation pages for the previous or next comic, we don't show the respective link. I hadn't noticed that the "Comic # (date)" bit was a link to the xkcd site before, but in context it makes sense to me. Including a link to the Explain page for the comic who's explain page you are already looking at doesn't make sense.
:The explanation page for the latest comic is "transcluded" in the main page pretty much as-is, so we get the header, the comic, the explanation, etc. We don't get the discussion, which is visible at the bottom of the Explain page. Because there is never an explanation for a comic that hasn't been released yet, there is never a "Next" link on the main page's transcluded header. So you get "Prev" and "Comic" links. The "Go to this comic" link is added by the main page above the transcluded explain page.
:I can see how the "Go to this comic" link might be poorly worded especially as it's placement seems to be within the explanation it's linking to. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 18:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
::Rather than "Go to this comic" maybe it could be "Go to full explanation" ? Something else? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 13:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
::There was [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests#.22Edit_this_explanation.22_link_on_main_page a discussion at one point] about a wittier/more descriptive link - but no one came up with anything. I do like "Go to Full Explanation" better, for what it's worth. --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
:::My problem with that suggestion is that it implies that the main page explanation is not full. As of right now, the full explanation is transcluded on the main page. There's nothing more to see by clicking that link (explanation wise) Perhaps "Go to full explanation page" but that doesn't quite sound right to me... [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::::How about "Go to this Comic Explanation Page"? One nice thing about the specific page rather than the [[Main_Page]] transcoding is that it nicely includes the discussion as well. I have a bookmark to the [[Main_Page]] that I look at every day, but I want to easily read the discussions, not only the explanation. Humm, maybe we could have a page [[most recent comic]] that automagically redirects to the most recent comic? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 12:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::I tried to get [[most recent comic]] to redirect to LATESTCOMIC, but can't get the syntax working - it is possible? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Apparently it isn't. I would have tried <code><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]]</nowiki></code> like you did, but since that doesn't work, I'll delete the page for now. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

== Discussion of latest comic ==
Perhaps include the discussions of the latest comic here? I almost missed there was a discussion field a few times because I would only read about the latest comic on the main page. [[User:Carewolf|Carewolf]] ([[User talk:Carewolf|talk]]) 14:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This comics's explanation is complete bollocks, I think. Of course it is NOT a "fact that such a room exists". This comics parodies trope often used in cop movies - an elderly cop goes to work for the last time before his retirement, packs things, plans fishing the next day ... only to be called to one more case (possibly with a new, young and brash partner). And despites his efforts not to screw anything and stay clear of danger, he is either mortally wounded or screws big time and is degraded. So much clichè, that if someone says "It's my last day or service", you might be sure one of the two options above happens. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retirony [[User:edheldil|Edheldil]] 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

== The comic explanation count is wrong ==

The adjustment is currently 3, but there are now 6 subcategories and one list making the current correct adjustment 7.
If the wiki was upgraded to version 1.20, a form exists to automatically exclude subcategories.
--[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 09:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:Looks like another week of the wiki going down then.
:But seriously, I've been noticing this too. Didn't know what was causing it, but it's going to have to be fixed sometime.[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::The text reads <pre><nowiki>We already have [[:Category:Comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-3}}''' comic explanations]]!</nowiki></pre> The -3 is to account for the subcategories and non-explanation pages in the category. There apparently used to be three such pages, and now there are seven. I would fix this myself, but the page is protected. If the wiki where upgraded to version 1.20, the categories could be explicitly excluded, but the [[List of all comics]] would still be in the category. (Note that the -3 actually appears twice.) --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Mediawiki 1.20 fixes this issue, although it'd be nice if this could be fixed in the meantime via the hack reccommended by divad. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 06:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

:Looks like Waldir updated the "Comic Correction Count" to "10" (as of 20 November 2012):
<nowiki> We already have [[:Category:Comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-10}}''' comic explanations]]!</big>
Note: the -10 in the calculation above is to discount subcategories (there are 7 of them as of 20 November 2012),
non-comic pages (2 as of same date: [[List of all comics]] and [[Exoplanet]])
and the comic 404, which was deliberately not posted. Thus 7 + 2 + 1 = 10
(But there are still {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-10)}} to go. Come and [[List of all comics|add yours]]!)</nowiki>
:Could we possibly make this more dynamic by creating a "IGNORE_IN_COUNT" category or something? and then using something like: <nowiki>{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-{{PAGESINCAT:IGNORE_IN_COUNT}}}</nowiki>? Then any additional entries to the "Comics" category (that are 'special' entries) could just have the special category added and no main page editing would be necessary? --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 07:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

==Make Jeff stop apologizing==
The apology for server downtime has been around for a while now. Can we take it down? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Spambots ==

I think someone should install [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter AbuseFilter]. --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 10:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

== Purge ==

We should regularly purge the server's cache for the main page using http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge to keep the explanation up to date. --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 02:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

== Updating the Rules ==

I've been having a lovely discussion with someone who apparently thought the "edit anything you want" rule applied to the Talk pages. As we don't have any codified rules for ''here'' and can only point to "well the canonical way this is done on Wikipedia is..." I think that there are a few things we need to put into the list of Rules on the front page, and then have a link to a more in-depth talk about why the rules exist and what-not.

Specifically, I'm talking about writing "Feel free to edit any page on the wiki to be better. But, treat talk pages like you would blog comments: comments by other people ''cannot be changed by you'', you can only respond to them." as a new rule to be plastered on the front page, as there seems to be an increasing number social neophytes that seem to think that editing words that are attributed as being said by another person is perfectly legitimate and non-controversial.

Shall we discuss? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:We could add the etiquette rules as an addendum to the signature reminder at the top of the page. Just an extra note below the alert box asking people to not edit other people's comments. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 06:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

::It really should be right down with the "edited mercilessly" description, because this is an exception to that statement. Shouldn't have two sets of contradictory instructions in different places. When I made my improper edit, I had a semi-conscious moment of doubt about whether changing the other guy's comment was ok, even though this is a wiki (and even though it wasn't really clear to me that this "discussion" box held something totally separate from the page content), but that statement at the bottom put all such doubts to rest. I read it multiple times to be sure. But I did not notice that line at the top about the four tildes until ''much'' later. It's somewhat lost, visually, in the header line, when you're not looking directly at it.[[Special:Contributions/50.0.38.245|50.0.38.245]] 18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

:::There's discussion to replace that message with a more noticeable alert box. The message at the bottom of the page appears for all pages, including talk pages, so a talk-page specific message there would not entirely fit. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 00:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

::::If that text at the bottom is in fact alterable, it should be written to take every case into account. It's an extremely poor user interface that has instructions appearing on a page stating rules that are the exact opposite of reality. And note that the altert box on the top looks a lot like a banner add, when you don't focus on it and read it. People will tend to habitually filter out anything written there from their perception. Also, it can easily be scrolled off the top of the screen when the discussion starts to get long, and they have a preview displayed.
::::So I think after the "...then do not submit it here.", it should add, "'''Exception''': others' comments in Discussion pages are not to be altered. See full rules at <<link to appropriate wikipedia page>>."[[Special:Contributions/50.0.38.245|50.0.38.245]] 15:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

== Update after changes ==

The front page explanation hasn't been updated at all day to match changes in the explanation on the comic's page. This is a major problem i think, as it is the front page explanation people visitors will most often read. --[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 20:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
: It might be a caching issue. Appending <code>&action=purge</code> to the URL will probably fix it. Can you confirm it looks good to you now? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
::Yep, now it updates instantly! Well done, whatever you did! :) --[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 16:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

:::I've also added a link underneath the comic box that has the action embedded, so no one has to do any manual URL hacking. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 17:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

== Suggestion: Change "Go to this comic" to "Go to this entry" ==

Just a small suggestion. For the Main Page, I suggest changing "Go to this comic" to say "Go to this ''entry''" instead to remove any confusion for new and regular viewers. It certainly took me a while to figure how to go to each featured comic's entry from the main page.

[[Special:Contributions/69.43.114.2|69.43.114.2]] 17:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

:How about if it reads "Go to this comic explanation"? Would that be less confusing? I only quibble because the explanations aren't really entries, in wiki parlance each page is usually called an article, but that doesn't seem to fit here as we really have explanation pages. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 17:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

::Agreed. [[User:Ctxppc|Randy Marsh]] ([[User talk:Ctxppc|talk]]) 22:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

== Explain the Unreleased Comic? ==
:I wonder if [[http://i56.tinypic.com/a9ton8.png this comic]] is permitted to be explained, despite the double issue of Randall pulling the comic plus me finding the pulled comic through "xkcd overrated"... [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 18:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

== Comic 1156 ==

I don't have an account to edit the page directly, so here's an edit someone should make:
It looks like whoever wrote the existing page simply googled 'conditioning' and found the first link that came up.
Please modify the link to point to 'Classical conditioning', not 'Operant conditioning'.
Thanks. {{unsigned ip|124.191.56.91|05:26, 7 January 2013‎ (UTC)}}

:Hi. This is the talk page for the main page of the wiki. This page only has a "view" of the actual comic explanation. The actual explanation page is at [[1156: Conditioning]], and I assure you, edit permissions have not been restricted for that page. Someone has already changed the page to link to Classical conditioning, but the original editor came back stating that Operant was correct. If you would like to start a discussion about this [[Talk:1156: Conditioning|on the talk page for this explanation]] that would be much more conducive to getting this matter settled. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

== Comic Links ==

Some of the links seem to be confusing, as they're titled in a weird way. The link/button 'go to this comic', I'd expect would go to the actual comic on XKCD's page. Yet it goes to the comic's wiki page. And clicking on the comic # and date directs you to the XKCD page, yet I really feel that link should go to the wiki page, as it's right at the top center there, and has the date and everything, sort of indicating that it's a wiki page, yet it's not. And the prev and next buttons next to it don't go to the xkcd page, they go to the wiki pages. Which is really messed up, I think. Because of my confusion, every single time I visit here, I clicked on the wrong link, though now I've gotten used to it. I suggest rewording the links as 'XKCD Comic # and date' and 'go to this comic's wiki page'. And possibly switching the links' positions so that the wiki links could be in that navigation bar and the XKCD links could be off to the side. After all, we are a wiki, so putting our wiki links to the comic off to the side and the direct xkcd link in the center seems odd. Anyway, has anyone had the same thoughts and/or agree with me on this?--[[Special:Contributions/69.119.250.251|69.119.250.251]] 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

== Unexplained comics ==

The template that starts each explanation page should be edited to have the next and previous buttons automatically skip over pages that don't exist, rather than simply not being there if comic n+1 or n-1 doesn't exist. Preferably it would append a notice to the next page (like the redirect notices commonly found on mediawiki) telling you how many comics have been skipped. I'm not sure how feasible this would be to script, however. [[Special:Contributions/130.160.145.185|130.160.145.185]] 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

== Percentage of remaining comics calculation is off... ==

Okay, I hate to be "that pedantic math guy", but... Today the main page reads "We have collaboratively explained 936 xkcd comics, and only 252 (27%) remain." While I agree that 252/936 is roughly 27%, I believe we should really be calculating the percentage as "the number left to explain" divided by "the total number of comics that exist", not divided by "the number we have finished". That is (today), 252/1188=21%. Think about it. If we had completed 594 comics today, with 594 remaining, what should the percentage be? 594/594=100%? That's not right... 594/1188=50%? That's what we really want to say.

The page is protected, which makes sense. So I'll make my suggestion here.

Change this:

<pre>
and only {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)}}
({{#expr: ({{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)) / ({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9) * 100 round 0}}%)
remain.
</pre>
To this:
<pre>
and only {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)}}
({{#expr: ({{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)) / {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}}} * 100 round 0}}%)
remain.
</pre>
[[User:Imperpay|Imperpay]] ([[User talk:Imperpay|talk]]) 15:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:Done and done. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 15:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads-up! However, notice that the #expr: around LATESTCOMIC was unnecessary. I've removed it. [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::Waldir, you have exposed me as a charlatan and a fool! (I just copied, pasted, and tinkered until I made something that worked. I don't actually understand it. No formal training, you see. It's what we used to call "hacking" back in the dawn of the digital era, before the word took on connotations of vandalism, trespassing, and fraud. Have you kids come up with another word for it?) [[User:Imperpay|Imperpay]] ([[User talk:Imperpay|talk]]) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

::: Joke's on me then, 'cause you sure fooled me – I readily assumed you knew your way around those parser functions. Nice job hacking the code, it was a nearly perfect crime ;) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 03:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:::I've heard the cool kids call that the "Maker Mentality", usually with a reference to [http://makezine.com/ Make magazine] and [http://makerfaire.com/ Maker Faire]. But I think there's also a movement to resurrect the original meaning of hacker. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

==sidebar ads?==
''Moved to [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals]] –– [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)''

== Expression error on Main Page ==

Please use <code><nowiki>{{PAGESINCAT:...|R}}</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>{{PAGESINCAT:...}}</nowiki></code> to correct these errors :) --[[Special:Contributions/110.168.83.62|110.168.83.62]] 10:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:Dun diddly done. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

== Compile a list of non-technical comics to non-technical readers? ==

I'm a long-time reader and fan of >< |< C |}, but my normal approach is useless when I introduce this provocative comic series to my less technical friends. They stay at the apparent level of many comics. They don't bother reading the explanations, but they would say, "it's hard to make sense". Imagine an average non-technical (and non-arts) major guy/girl, can we compile a list of state-of-the-art but less-technical, easy-to-comprehend but "ah ha!!" strips that is suitable for them? --[[User:FrenzY|W shll nvr flly xpln xkcd!]] ([[User talk:FrenzY|talk]]) 12:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
:Oh my god that signature.
:Gaah, derailment. Uh, pretty much anything that isn't tagged with the physics or math categories are easy enough to understand for the average English speaker, so just check the categories at the bottom of the page for that. Also, avoid comics with the incomplete tag, and that oughta be fine. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

== Quit building? ==
''This post was moved to [[Talk:1214: Geoguessr]].''

:Hello, this is the talk page for the content of the front page of the wiki, not for discussion of the most recent comic, that happens [[Talk:1214: Geoguessr|here]]. I've moved your post over there for you. Cheers, and welcome to explain xkcd! [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

== List of incomplete comics ==
We need a link to the "Incomplete articles" at the main page below the "Missing link". Most pages are created but many are incomplete.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

== Header message ==

'''Please don't take this seriously unless you actually think it's a good idea:'''

I think the header should be changed from "explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb." to "explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb... or still have some hope that comic [[1190]] will end." or something similar. [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 14:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

::Nope! This page is trying to explain more than 1222 comics, not only [[1190: Time]]. The header just states the truth.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

== A point of confusion ==

Why is 'Apatosaurus' a category but 'Internet Argument' no longer a category? [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
:Cuz people hit the random button, see an Apatosaurus feature in three comics and figure it must be a recurring theme. Same as the internet argument thing. Will get round to a category purge after we've cleared out all the incomplete tags. I think there's one for ferrets hidden away somewhere in the dark recesses of our catalog of categories. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::On the subject, can I suggest a "Barred from Conferences" category, or similar? That's definitely a recurring theme (for a long, long time), and thus should be justified enough. I'd be happy to add various qualifying articles as I scroll through again, if I can, but first I'll leave it up to someone else to solidify the actual name. (In case it turns out not to be just conferences, for example.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

== Incomplete comics statement ==

I suggest the minor change: "We have an explanation for all x xkcd comics, and only y (y/x %) are '''marked as''' incomplete." –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

154: Beliefs

2013-06-22T16:12:23Z

178.98.31.27: /* Explanation */ The initially unconcerned megan-like professor is unnamed, in the transcript, and Megan (who is concerned) isn't proven to be herself titled.

{{comic
| number = 154
| date = September 8, 2006
| title = Beliefs
| image = beliefs.jpg
| titletext = Scientists are also sexy, let's not forget that.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a reference to {{w|young Earth creationism}}, which includes the belief that the earth has only existed for about 6,000 years. This is mainly based on {{w|Biblical literalism|literal interpretations of the Bible}}. [[Megan]]'s Professor is originally not bothered by the fact that someone believes this, until she hears that this person is a {{w|United States Senate|US senator}}.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and a professor stand together, with another figure in the distance.]
:Megan: Professor, that man claims the earth is 6,000 years old!
:Professor: So? Just use your head and don't concern yourself overmuch with what other people think.

:Megan: But he says the fossils in the mountains were put there in a flood!
:Professor: Well, evidence suggests that they were not.
:Megan: But he--

:[A mountain landscape.]
:Professor: A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them.

:[Megan and professor again.]
:Megan: But he believes the silliest things!
:Professor: So?

:Professor: The universe doesn't care what you believe. The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for your faith, it just asks for your eyes.

:Megan: But he's a US Senator!
:Professor: Ah, then yes, we do have a bit of a situation.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:165: Turn Signals

2013-06-22T03:13:38Z

178.98.31.27:

I have at times become mesmerized by the "click-click click-click" of my turn signal relay while watching the flashing signals on the car ahead of me. It's fun to notice how they drift in and out of sync, but I never bothered to determine the {{w|beat frequency}}.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 03:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What, to me, seems amazing, is not just that they are (certainly within extreme observational tolerance) beating at the same frequency, but are also ''in phase''. At that point I would begin to suspect that they're each connected up to the same time-signal source (e.g. a GPS data output), and cued to begin each cycle on the flip of each whole second, or similar. Of course, IRL, that'd be an answer in search of a problem. And you want your signals to start flashing the moment you activate them, so even if guided by an atomic clock you'd probably have any given pair (albeit maintaining the same frequency) exhibiting a (constant) phase separation.

As for talking about being not held externally in sync, reminds me of the lights certain riders of tricycles have on their machine, in a 24-hour cycle race (mainly for bicycles, but trikies do tend to ride it as well). Flashing LED rear lights, very bright. On the backs of trikes they tend to put the lights out on each splayed rear stay, as well as the axle between the two rear wheels, to emphasise their width to any traffic that will be overtaking them in the night. Usually three identical flashers, but (as noted) the timings are rarely in sync, never mind in phase. As they're arranged in a triangle and ''very'' rarely all three on the same beat you can watch the machine as it retreats into the distance (my usual view of these phenomena) and when two of the lights are in sync and agreeing with each other, but the is off the beat, there's an effective directional 'wash' of light, this direction of wash changing as the in-syncs depart and perhaps the odd one syncs up anew with one of the other two originals. And if they all find themselves +/- 120-degrees out of phase with the other two, at any time, you get a rotary pattern emerging for a few moments.

You probably have to be there, but it's a sight to see, in the dead of night. And analyse. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:165: Turn Signals

2013-06-22T03:12:41Z

178.98.31.27:

I have at times become mesmerized by the "click-click click-click" of my turn signal relay while watching the flashing signals on the car ahead of me. It's fun to notice how they drift in and out of sync, but I never bothered to determine the {{w|beat frequency}}.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 03:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What, to me, seems amazing, is not just that they are (certainly within extreme observational tolerance) beating at the same frequency, but are also ''in phase''. At that point I would begin to suspect that they're each connected up to the same time-signal source (e.g. a GPS data output), and cued to begin each cycle on the flip of each whole second, or similar. Of course, IRL, that'd be an answer in search of a solution. And you want your signals to start flashing the moment you activate them, so even if guided by an atomic clock you'd probably have any given pair (albeit maintaining the same frequency) exhibiting a (constant) phase separation.

As for talking about being not held externally in sync, reminds me of the lights certain riders of tricycles have on their machine, in a 24-hour cycle race (mainly for bicycles, but trikies do tend to ride it as well). Flashing LED rear lights, very bright. On the backs of trikes they tend to put the lights out on each splayed rear stay, as well as the axle between the two rear wheels, to emphasise their width to any traffic that will be overtaking them in the night. Usually three identical flashers, but (as noted) the timings are rarely in sync, never mind in phase. As they're arranged in a triangle and ''very'' rarely all three on the same beat you can watch the machine as it retreats into the distance (my usual view of these phenomena) and when two of the lights are in sync and agreeing with each other, but the is off the beat, there's an effective directional 'wash' of light, this direction of wash changing as the in-syncs depart and perhaps the odd one syncs up anew with one of the other two originals. And if they all find themselves +/- 120-degrees out of phase with the other two, at any time, you get a rotary pattern emerging for a few moments.

You probably have to be there, but it's a sight to see, in the dead of night. And analyse. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:196: Command Line Fu

2013-06-22T00:45:58Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Disagree with the "in the time that he spends trying to solve the issue" bit. Problem solved, it was the further time taken to write up the documentation (man pages?) that ru..."

Disagree with the "in the time that he spends trying to solve the issue" bit. Problem solved, it was the further time taken to write up the documentation (man pages?) that ruined the day(/night).

Also: "if your user interface takes as long to operate as a command line". Inconsitent with the fact that the explanation starts off by assuming it ''is'' a command-line script. Also command-lines can be very quick (when not dealing with anything more complex than the stated problem) as long as you know what you want to do, which the given Cueball obviously did. I find that most window-based analogues take far more studying, for something as simple as the original problem. But YMMV on that one. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 00:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:197: Ninja Turtles

2013-06-22T00:37:07Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Regarding the William Tell Overture's popular re-imagining, it has been said that "An intellectual is someone who can listen to <nowiki>[it]</nowiki> without thinking of the L..."

Regarding the William Tell Overture's popular re-imagining, it has been said that "An intellectual is someone who can listen to <nowiki>[it]</nowiki> without thinking of the Lone Ranger," or very similar. (Wikipedia currently has a reference note about this that chiefly attributes it "... to Jack Guin writing in the Denver Post in 1962. (Brooklyn Barrister (1962), Volume 14, p. 107).", but it was an very well known anonymous pithy (and snobby?) statement a decade or two later, as I recall.)

200: Bill Nye

2013-06-22T00:16:49Z

178.98.31.27: /* Explanation */ Added one word. (But nothing about ice's thermal /contraction/ at relevent temperature ranges...)

{{comic
| number = 200
| date = December 22, 2006
| title = Bill Nye
| image = bill_nye.png
| titletext = You could at least not wear the lab coat everywhere, dude.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
{{w|Bill Nye}} is well known in the United States for making educational science videos for elementary school children. In these videos, he is shown as enthusiastic about science and learning. Here, he is trying to enjoy a meal and is quite rude about the mother asking about why the ice cracks, the opposite of the way he behaves in the videos.

Ice pops and cracks when dropped in a glass of water because of thermal expansion, where the (relatively) hot water causes the ice to expand unevenly, cracking it.

The title-text has another joke. He's wearing a lab coat to a dinner in which he does not want to be recognized or harrassed with questions. However, he wears his recognizable lab coat.

==Transcript==
:[A restaurant. A mother and two children sit at one table; a man in a white lab coat sits in another.]
:THE TRIBULATIONS of BILL NYE
:Mother: Hey, kids, see how the ice cracks and pops in your water? I wonder what causes that...
:Mother: *AHEM* I said, I wonder what --
:Bill Nye: Know what? Maybe I just wanna enjoy my goddamn meal.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:208: Regular Expressions

2013-06-22T00:00:46Z

178.98.31.27:

Hi, sorry about the previous "poor explanation". This one is pretty straight-forward (I think), given enough information about "regex"es and Perl. On a side-note, how did you find out the date for the comic? -- NariOx
:The explanation was mostly accurate, my gripe was with the fact that a number of fields were empty - the transcript, date and categories weren't done. You can find the date in the "all comics" page, accessible from the sidebar. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Grumble grumble*, email should be intrinsically treated as 7-bit ASCII. 200MB of email would be almost 210 million bytes, raw. Even assuming half of that is header overheads on top of a whole lot of short message bodies, that's a lot more characters still to processed than 5 million. Of course, if people send more complex data through common MIME extensions (or the old favourites of uuencoding, etc) so as to send extended characters and binary-attachments (including various compressed formats of data, but again needing significant overheads when not containing large documents within), then that reduces the amount of characters needing searching (but probably needs a few more "use <foo>::<bar>;" bits on your Perl code, in order to give you the tools to isolate such blocks and decode what's in them for further searching within). But things went downhill ever since people could start sending emails with fancy graphical signatures and backgrounds... Yeah, I'm an Old Fogey from the dark ages. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 00:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:210: 90's Flowchart

2013-06-21T23:42:08Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Nothing to be said about Markov Chains? In context, you'd take a large amount of "well formed lyrics", slice them up into sub-chains and then aim to assemble new larger chain..."

Nothing to be said about Markov Chains? In context, you'd take a large amount of "well formed lyrics", slice them up into sub-chains and then aim to assemble new larger chains of words by randomly linking fragments to neighbours that match the original fragment, to create novel 'runs' at the larger level. Noting that there need not be any 'sensible link' from one fragment to its neighbours' neighbours.

Spambots (used to?) do this a lot to make an automatic 'good looking text', randomly, to get past basic spam-blockers for email and forum messageboards. The unaware reader could even get sucked into the nonsense, for a short while.

For a rapper's output, you'd probably want some additional cross-link checking so that rhyming, aliteration, assonance and consonance emerge from the result. Although for really free-form lyrics it could be much more about the rhythm of the output, so simple syllable-counting might be the main criteria of control.

Now word that suitably for the Explanation and someone might find it interesting. ;)

(Also, in severl ways the ''opposite'' to Markov chain construction, I always liked the [http://www.codeasart.com/poetry/darwin.html Darwinian Poetry] site. Some of the output from that is strangely intersting, although it's been several years since I was active on the (then usable) forums and helping nudge the process onwards.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 23:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:224: Lisp

2013-06-21T21:50:46Z

178.98.31.27:

I reckon I disagree with this:
<blockquote>
In the comic, Cueball marvels at the fundamental and complete nature of the language of creation that he sees in his dream, the ultimate low level language, before being told by God that the universe was mostly built using a high level programming language, perl.
</blockquote>

But, despite it's age, Lisp is also a high-level language and lispers probably spend more of their time dealing with higher-level abstractions than perlists.

What's causing the narrator's marvel in the comic is that Lisp has a very elegant (almost non-existent) syntax and the language has a very close relationship with the underlying syntactical structure of the program, and that thinking about it does tend to give suitably-minded hackers feelings of awe and reverence, once they grok it. Even Larry Wall, the creator of Perl, will readily concede that Lisp is beautiful.

Perl, on the other hand, has masses of totally unrelated syntactical bits and pieces drawn from almost everywhere (basic syntax from C, a bunch of environment variables from shell or awk, an inline documentation format, inline regular expressions, formats borrowed from Fortran, bolted-on pseudo-OO from god-knows-where, you name it), so the language, is huge, messy, non-orthogonal, and ugly - but it does have the advantage that if you need a small job done, you can usually get it done in perl rather fast, at the cost, perhaps, of maintainability for long-term or large projects.

So the narrator dreams that the entire universe was created using the cleanest, most elegant and beautiful computer language so far discovered, one which allows the user to create software in terms of high-level abstractions if he or she chooses to; but in reality, God tells him it was a quick-dirty hack-job done in the dirtiest, ugliest - but effective nonetheless - language around. {{unsigned|‎86.165.192.2}}

:I think that A) you've missed the point of that statement, and B) If you believe the explanation to be inaccurate or incomplete you are fully encouraged to edit it. Also, Perl is not the dirtiest, ugliest language around. There are innumerable contenders, but I'd say {{w|Brainfuck}} is definitely in the running, and I personally would say that Java is in there too. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

::Perl isn't a bad language. The regular expressions that it offers are fantastic, and it's at least ''consistent''. Java's a slow messy and vulnerability-ridden language, but I'd have to go with PHP for the most awful, broken and incomplete piece of crap you could possibly use. Literally has no redeeming features outside of momentum and inexplicably widespread support. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

:::I never said Perl was bad. I need to teach myself Perl. and that Regular Expressions as we know them today came from Perl, is evidence enough that Perl is a wonderful language. And, I'll agree with you that PHP is an ugly, ugly, disgusting piece of trash. As someone who's had to do OO-PHP, just don't, run far away. I did. I ran to Ruby on Rails, and my life, as a web developer, has been heavenly. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lisp, the "ultimate low level language"? Ok, whoever wrote that really does not know what he/she is talknig about.

One of the most valuable characteristics of Lisp is the fact that is can be used in functional paradigm. Perl can also be used that way, but is considered a more hackish language and not as elegant as Lisp.
Perl language can solve problems with different methods, and the phrase "ostensibly, yes. Honestly, we hacked most of it together with perl" means that the universe was created with perl, but trying to use Lisp way of programing (probably functional paradigm), instead of actually doing it on Lisp (probably for speed)

Oh, in case is not clear to somebody, Lisp is a HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE.

Java and php would have to compete for the title of the "the dirtiest, ugliest - but effective nonetheless - language around"
[[Special:Contributions/189.135.124.172|189.135.124.172]] 18:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, somewhat a Perl-head here, but not going to add to the arguments about that. Instead: I think "My God, it's full of stars!" is ''not'' a quote from 2001 (where I'm fairly sure there's no broadcast dialoguge at all after Hal is silenced), but from the sequal, 2010, in the part where they 'review' the final recordings of the 2001 mission. But I really need someone who has these two films at hand to check before amending the explanation.

(Oh, go on then. Can I nominate Ada as the most godawful 'proper' language? Not as awkward as COBOL can be (for a proper programmer who doesn't need the "Business Orientated" tendencies), but has just the right (or wrong) mix of strictness to get my back up even while maintaining a pretence of being readable. Mind you, it's 20 years since I've used it, so memories about it may be distorted or outdated.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 21:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:236: Collecting Double-Takes

2013-06-21T13:34:21Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Inserted the first paragraph (explaining the 'singles-magnet' properties of fresh food sections in supermarkets). But can we also say that "There may be a similar attractor f..."

Inserted the first paragraph (explaining the 'singles-magnet' properties of fresh food sections in supermarkets). But can we also say that "There may be a similar attractor for gay singles of a like mind to meet, albeit without the same degree of guarantee of unattachment"? Not my scene, so beyond my direct experience, but I know it's said that it happens.

Anyway, with both male and female figures in view of main-Cueball (themselves perhaps on the cusp of 'making a connection'), it looks like he's looking at (feigning!) the possibility of ''either'' relationship, perhaps even that he's deciding ''which'' of the two to approach and proposition. Or perhaps both. The KY is no absolute clue, given the many and various possibilities that a 'kind and considerate' partner (although still freaky, to a more 'vanilla' theoertical companion) might be looking to use it for. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 13:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

236: Collecting Double-Takes

2013-06-21T13:16:05Z

178.98.31.27: /* Explanation */ Inserting some more information at the start.

{{comic
| number =236
| date =March 16, 2007
| title =Collecting Double Takes
| image =collecting_double_takes.png
| titletext =Fun Game: find a combination of two items that most freaks out the cashier. Winner: pregnancy test and single coat hanger.
}}

==Explanation==
There's a fairly well-founded meme that singles looking for other singles (''mostly'' that being men for women, and vice-versa, but not exclusively) can make connections with others in the fresh produce sections of a supermarket. From a single lady's point of view, men who are buying such goods are more likely to be unattached, due to the traditionally skewed gender politics of who shops for what in a couple, and at the same time the man is exhibiting good habits in not merely stocking up on ready-meals or subsisting on take-aways while living the bachelor life.

By standing in a produce aisle with a tube of {{w|K-Y Jelly}} in his hand and considering what produce to buy (between bananas, apples, oranges and zuchinis, and doubtless many more offscreen), Cueball is allowing other people to believe he plans to use that produce item to pleasure himself via anal sex. K-Y Jelly is most commonly used as a sexual lubricant.

Cueball is probably not actually planning on doing this, but he loves to see the look on people's faces; hence, he's collecting double-takes.

In the title text, he says he likes to play a game of "freak out the cashier using two items". Coat hangers can be used to perform do-it-yourself abortions.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing in the middle of the produce aisle in a supermarket, holding a tube of K-Y Jelly in one hand, the other on his chin. The signs read "Bananas" "Apples" "Oranges" and "Zucchini" from left to right.]
:MY HOBBY: Standing in the supermarket's produce section holding a tube of K-Y Jelly, looking contemplative.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]

Talk:1228: Prometheus

2013-06-21T12:48:51Z

178.98.31.27:

Talk:243: Appropriate Term

2013-06-21T04:31:39Z

178.98.31.27:

"Nub" tending towards "Nipple", in my part of the world. Also various alternatives based on it looking and feeling like a pencil eraser (also 'rubber', in local vernacular, normally without the non-local 'prophylactic' association to that word, thus going towards the SFW end of the scale).

I liked them too. Touchpads are too prone to being tapped or brushed when typing on the keyboard, potentially changing the window focus or active mouse position at awkward times mid-composition. Which is why a lot of people get them disabled and get a USB mouse, perhaps travel-sized, for using with their laptops. Or at least disable the "tap equals button-click" behaviour and rely on the (marginally less accidentally pressed) actual left/right(/centre) buttons for that purpose. I use whatever's there (see below about preference to keyboard, though), due to temporarily working with many different people's devices. I can get on with just about anything that isn't touchscreen-only (and may ''eventually'' get used to that, also).

However, you all remember the awkward self-centering nature of the 'nub', right? The firmware treats an extended period of the 'nub' at rest as being at true centre and thus nullifying any previous motion. Applying a steady pressure to (say) move a scroll-bar gradually sideways or up/down, to review a table or graphic being edited would soon result in the mouse movement stopping as it assumes the offset position is centre. You naturally automatically compensate by applying more offset to keep it moving (perhaps to repeat). You then either hit the maximum deflection limit and have to stop trying or else finish your scrolling and let go of it (and the left-button/whatever that you're also holding down). Now the cursor is rapidly retreating in the opposite direction as its position at the mechanical centre is being treated as movement in the other direction.

You can fight it for a temporary stillness (although you never make the situation better, just can temporarily hold the cursor still when that's important) but eventually you have to let the nub sit there and wait, often with the mouse cursor representation moving towards an the edge (or corner) of the screen, and often hitting it. If there's now no perpendicular edge-wise motion to it (or is 'cornered') you're never ''quite'' sure when it stops being a mouse forced against the edge by the presumption of movement and becomes a mouse cursor ''resting'' against the edge, for lack of input to take it anywhere else, so you may wait a bit longer than you need before trying the 'nub' again to elicit movement onto the next bit of the screen that truly needs the mouse-cursor's presence.

(Personally, I've always been a big fan of keyboard shortcuts for as many things as I can do to replace a mouse. But now we're onto the realms of software that ''has'' tabbing between active controls, but in a really bad non-sequential order. Active KillDisk is one perpetrator, with some of the tickboxes on a given dialogue being mis-arranged in the internal tab-order list. A couple of shift-tabs sometimes needed to reverse-traverse the focus onto the next bit you want to 'click' on, even though it is visually the next item down... But I digress.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 04:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:243: Appropriate Term

2013-06-21T04:20:46Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "I liked them too. Touchpads are too prone to being tapped or brushed when typing on the keyboard, potentially changing the window focus or active mouse position at awkward ti..."

I liked them too. Touchpads are too prone to being tapped or brushed when typing on the keyboard, potentially changing the window focus or active mouse position at awkward times mid-composition. Which is why a lot of people get them disabled and get a USB mouse, perhaps travel-sized, for using with their laptops. Or at least disable the "tap equals button-click" behaviour and rely on the (marginally less accidentally pressed) actual left/right(/centre) buttons for that purpose. I use whatever's there (see below about preference to keyboard, though), due to temporarily working with many different people's devices. I can get on with just about anything that isn't touchscreen-only (and may ''eventually'' get used to that, also).

However, you all remember the awkward self-centering nature of the 'nub' (as it tended to be called, in my part of the world), right? The firmware treats an extended period of the 'nub' at rest as being at true centre and thus nullifying any previous motion. Applying a steady pressure to (say) move a scroll-bar gradually sideways or up/down, to review a table or graphic being edited would soon result in the mouse movement stopping as it assumes the offset position is centre. You naturally automatically compensate by applying more offset to keep it moving (perhaps to repeat). You then either hit the maximum deflection limit and have to stop trying or else finish your scrolling and let go of it (and the left-button/whatever that you're also holding down). Now the cursor is rapidly retreating in the opposite direction as its position at the mechanical centre is being treated as movement in the other direction.

You can fight it for a temporary stillness (although you never make the situation better, just can temporarily hold the cursor still when that's important) but eventually you have to let the nub sit there and wait, often with the mouse cursor representation moving towards an the edge (or corner) of the screen, and often hitting it. If there's now no perpendicular edge-wise motion to it (or is 'cornered') you're never ''quite'' sure when it stops being a mouse forced against the edge by the presumption of movement and becomes a mouse cursor ''resting'' against the edge, for lack of input to take it anywhere else, so you may wait a bit longer than you need before trying the 'nub' again to elicit movement onto the next bit of the screen that truly needs the mouse-cursor's presence.

(Personally, I've always been a big fan of keyboard shortcuts for as many things as I can do to replace a mouse. But now we're onto the realms of software that ''has'' tabbing between active controls, but in a really bad non-sequential order. Active KillDisk is one perpetrator, with some of the tickboxes on a given dialogue being mis-arranged in the internal tab-order list. A couple of shift-tabs sometimes needed to reverse-traverse the focus onto the next bit you want to 'click' on, even though it is visually the next item down... But I digress.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 04:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:244: Tabletop Roleplaying

2013-06-21T03:42:50Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Maybe could have a link to 969: Delta-P put in at an appropriate juncture in the explanation? ~~~~"

Maybe could have a link to [[969: Delta-P]] put in at an appropriate juncture in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 03:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:245: Floor Tiles

2013-06-21T03:30:17Z

178.98.31.27: /* Obsession */

I wond what HE thinks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4

==Obsession==
The explanation fails to mention the link with Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Stepping on, or avoiding particular floor tiles can be an example of OCD-induced behaviour. Moreover OCD is positively correlated with high IQ and therefore within the "nerd" scope of XKCD.

The reason why Cueball simply denies walking funny (sic) instead of offering the correct explanation, apart from simplicity, may also be because he is embarrassed by the awareness of his own disorder.--[[Special:Contributions/158.169.131.14|158.169.131.14]] 10:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have this walking obsession too. Curiously, my friends can understand my algorithm after observing me in my natural habitat for 2 minutes.

:(New editor, here, the above line being someone else unsigned, or somehow divorced from a prior signing.)
:While I'm bigger with longer legs now, I'm pretty sure my naturally long stride arose from nurturing a regular gait that would avoid cracks in awkwardly-sized paving slabs.
*....*....*....* Original natural gait
(Let's call that 100% of normal, for the sake of comparison, based purely on this ASCII.)

|---|---|---|---|---| Slabs
*...*...*...*...* Shortened gait, typically centered on one step per slab
(80% stride. Obviously shortened and somewhat awkward.)

|---|---|---|---|---| Slabs
*.......*.......* Too-long gait, typically centered on one step ''every other'' slab
(160% stride. ''Very'' akward)

|---|---|---|---|---| Slabs
*.....*.....*.....* Slightly lengthened gait, two slabs, miss one, repeat.
(120% stride. Obviously longer, but not too awkward once practiced. )

:The 120% version (or whatever proportion it is, IRL) effectively works by aiming the feet just after a crack, foot just before a crack, skipping the next slab entirely.
:That tactic was developed back when I was <10 years old (but the latent mathematician in me is proud of my younger self's approach to analysing the tiling), possibly back when I was 6 or 7. They were large rectangular slabs, meaning different strategies in different directions. But when shorter that might mean the above applied when travelling in the 'short direction', but 'long direction' walking was two steps per one slab (after crack, before next crack), one on the next (middle). As I grew up a bit it would have become 'every other slab' in the short-axis, and the above in the long axis. Growing up yet more and it changes again. Diagonal travel is finessed accordingly.
:As an adult, most newer paving slabs have tended to changed from the traditional large rectangular ones to smaller square ones, just big enough for feet to fit on without any possibility of finessing that. Luckily they tend to be monochrome, so it's just a whole number stepped over (when I notice what's under my feet enough to have to do something about it), sometimes involving a Pythagorean calculation... ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 03:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

== Sidewalk cracks ==

My edit/observation that the title text alludes to an {{w|Old wives' tale}} "if you step on a crack you will break your mother's back" was removed. I'm just hoping for additional discussion. "Sidewalk cracks ... out-of-sync with your natural stride" seems to be a clear reference to the wives' tale in question. As I reread my edit I realize this doesn't explain Cueball's behavior, so I was wrong on that point, but my assertion that the title text ''does'' point to the wives' tale seems valid enough. Thoughts?
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 00:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

: Additional: I am confounded why Wikipedia does not recognize "step on a crack" as a wives' tale, childrens' taunt, etc. Is there some [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pondian pondian] aspect to this I am missing? In the Midwestern US where I grew up, "step on a crack" is (or was) a common meme; it was even exposited in [http://www.metrolyrics.com/whip-it-lyrics-devo.html song] (sorry for the lame lyric link) --[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:It's not so much referencing the step on a crack and break your mother's back child's game so much as many of those with obsessive compulsive tendencies are really annoyed that each footstep cannot be classified as a digital step, meaning that your foot is only one one tile at a time. It's not so much that you don't want to "break your mother's back" it's just a matter of personal pride that you don't walk on cracks. Same problem with steps that are just barely too long that you always end up taking the next one with the same foot. You just start to feel off kilter. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Never heard of the "mother's back" version. Though I'd do this for (referencing prior section title) probably vaguely OCD reasons without an actual mythology behind it, whenever there was a reason for it (e.g. in children's picture books) it was always something to do with bears. (Here in the UK, that is, without any unzooed bears roaming around. i.e. obviously ficticious ones.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 02:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:245: Floor Tiles

2013-06-21T02:59:08Z

178.98.31.27: /* Sidewalk cracks */

Talk:246: Labyrinth Puzzle

2013-06-21T02:24:29Z

178.98.31.27:

Just ask which color is the sky.. {{unsigned|‎175.110.37.200}}
:Oh, although the strip doesn't explicitly say so; in those riddles you can normally only ask one question. --[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
::There's another (more traditional) three-guard variation where one guard always tells the truth, one guard always tells a lie and the third alternates between pure truth and pure lie (and you don't know which flip they're currently flopped upon). But you ''still'' only get to ask one question of one guard. Have fun with that one. My personal solution certainly has a degree of convolution, but I've heard other workable answers. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 02:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:259: Clichéd Exchanges

2013-06-20T10:30:46Z

178.98.31.27:

I thought the cliche being referred to was "wrecked 'em? I hardly knew 'em!" (a double entendre on "rectum" ) http://ask.metafilter.com/122210/JokeFilter-What-is-the-origin-of-the-joke-with-the-punchline-rectum-damn-near-killed-him [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 14:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:In my experience it's a general "<tagword>, I hardly knew(/know) her(/him)", where the tagword is an -er/-im word and can (by sheer force of will, often groan-worthy) be taken as a double-entendre spawn. e.g. "Which cathedral is that in the picture?" "Chester." "Chester? I hardly know 'er!" (The worse the better, arguably, but that example's probably too flat.)
:Your form follows alongside of that. But this cliché is the mismatched follow-up, only sparked off (albeit by deliberate disassociation) by the "O RLY?" cliché as feed-line. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 10:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

269: TCMP

2013-06-20T08:21:43Z

178.98.31.27: /* Explanation */ Thought I'd point this out...

{{comic
| number = 269
| date = May 28, 2007
| title = TCMP
| image = tcmp.png
| titletext = A big obstacle in experimenting with the mind's dream-simulation-engine is holding onto the details as you wake up. With TCMP you can bring back any information you want.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
[[Cueball]] trained himself to type while asleep, so he could communicate from inside his dreams (and not have to worry about [[430: Every Damn Morning|forgetting them after waking up]]). He calls this ''Trans-Consciousness Messaging Protocol'', or TCMP. He succeeds in sending a message from inside a dream, but his friends are disappointed when that first message is a {{w|troll (Internet)|trollish}} "F1rst p0st!!", instead of something constructive.

"Bell & Watson" refers to {{w|Alexander Graham Bell}} and his assistant {{w|Thomas A. Watson}}. Bell is generally credited with inventing the {{w|telephone}}; his first phone call was to Watson in another part of their lab.

TCMP is hardly the first joke protocol to exist, either: see {{w|IP over Avian Carriers|RFC 1149: IP over Avian Carriers}}, an {{w|Request for Comments|RFC}} the {{w|Internet Engineering Task Force}} created for {{w|April Fools' Day}} 1990 but actually ''implemented'' (briefly) in 2001.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Hey, help me test the Trans-Consciousness Messaging Protocol.
:Man: What's that?
:Cueball: I've been training myself to keep my fingers moving slightly as I fall asleep. So I can type from inside dreams.

:Cueball: I'm going to sleep now. My computer will relay my messages to you as I explore the dream world.

:[In the dream:]
:Cueball: So strange to think none of this is real. And yet I have this lifeline to the internet back home.

:Cueball: A chance to speak from one reality to another. I feel like Bell & Watson. I get to write the inaugural TCMP message. Let's see...

:[Outside:]
:Megan: "F1rst P0st!!"?
:Man: Great. He's jumped straight to trans-reality trolling.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:272: Linux User at Best Buy

2013-06-20T08:07:24Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Not that Macs or Linux are invulnerable to malware. (Anyone else remember the {{w|Morris worm|Internet Worm}}, which would surely have ripped through Linux machines if not en..."

Not that Macs or Linux are invulnerable to malware. (Anyone else remember the {{w|Morris worm|Internet Worm}}, which would surely have ripped through Linux machines if not encountered on Unix, already, in pre-Linux days. Other exploits ''have'' been discovered, and had to be fixed.) Having said that, both types of machine ''tend'' to be safer from an OS security model point of view, from being a minority target that is largely overlooked ''and'' from the end-users being generally more savvy against liveware component attacks. However with the targetted growing flood of new users, that may well be changing. The latter two points, at least, although I'm sure ''some'' of the distros "boot as root" as well.

The speed of Linux also tends to be more from being more finely-honed by the last generation or two of geeks. Less clutter (at least with the distros ''I'' like, YMMV with some of the more "user friendly" ones) and the somewhat intimate knowledge of the system that the user tends to get and is able to act upon if anything displeases them (although, again, that may be changing). These days (and those days, I'm pretty sure) you ''can'' get mainstream AV programs for Linux (and Mac) and while I'm not going to say they're ''necessary'' for Linux, they're available and primed to help you out of various messes you ''could'' encounter. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 08:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:279: Pickup Lines

2013-06-20T01:06:55Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with ""Is your father a thief? because that's totally my jetta you parked outside." looks similar to a "because he stole the brightest star in the heavens to make you", or altenativ..."

"Is your father a thief? because that's totally my jetta you parked outside." looks similar to a "because he stole the brightest star in the heavens to make you", or altenatively starting differently as "Are you a thief? Because you've stolen my heart." But I don't know what to insert into the Explanation. There may be other alternative 'originals'.

The Title-Text line is definitely a perversion of "That <piece of clothing> looks good on you, but would look even better on my bedroom floor." Unless you can think of anything else.

(No, I've not used any of these, before you ask. Although maybe they would have been preferable to what I ''have'' used.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 01:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1227: The Pace of Modern Life

2013-06-19T20:56:43Z

178.98.31.27:

Is it sad that after reading the first few, I thought "TL; DR" and found myself skim reading most of them since I'm meant to be working right now and not reading xkcd? {{unsigned ip|‎90.152.3.226}}

That's obviously what's intended [[Special:Contributions/155.56.68.216|155.56.68.216]] 09:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's sad. According to my 11th Grade Literary Analysis, the propensity to take shortcuts is a fundamental flaw in human nature, but introductory Psychology lauded our use of heuristics. I say you should find meaning in your humanity and ability to set your own priorities and allocate just enough resources to various aspects of your life in order to succeed in life where the objectives are unclear.[[Special:Contributions/98.166.43.28|98.166.43.28]] 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)DBrak

The topic made me slow down, read, and understand. Perhaps the point was lost on me, but the expressions from a century ago seem much like those made today. One can't help but wonder if that means they were wrong then and wrong now or if our society was in a century long devolutionary spiral, terminating with Twitter or whatever is coming next. --[[Special:Contributions/108.34.230.242|108.34.230.242]] 10:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Had this continued to present day the most recent entry would be something like this:
:lol didnt read '''#tldr #boredalready #yawn'''
:::- Most of 'Civilisation', ''Social Media''
::::::::::2013
[[Special:Contributions/77.86.53.65|77.86.53.65]] 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just added an explanation. Unfortunately, there's no transcript provided in the source code and I don't have time to type all that out (who does?). Also, I have no idea what to use for categories. Any suggestions? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:Not a suggestion, but does anyone know if Randall types or writes it out, or copies and pastes? --[[User:Luckymustard|Luckymustard]] ([[User talk:Luckymustard|talk]]) 13:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
::Looks like the letterforms are identical -- my guess is a custom font. [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 14:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If this comic was meant to say that we should give up on these types of arguments, this comic did the opposite effect: I actually AGREE with all of this!

I mean, I tend to write long private messages, while the longest replies I get are also the most satisfying, since they tell me quite a bit of the recipient. Relatedly, I prefer to write long responses to pieces of artwork when I comment on art sites, telling people exactly why I like the art... what shines... what needs to be polished. (Of course, I am going to need to find a way to simply stay at a work and truly take in what is presented.) In fact, letter restrictions sometimes restrict me too much. I DO need to be more social, not having any reading material at hand (whether the material be a newspaper or a video game). I dislike people PUSHING me to look around myself; this is something I do automatically. In fact, while I like staying inside and exploring the wonders of the Internet hours on end, I also like going outside alone and looking around myself, seeing the wonders that other people ignore (probably because other people are too busy talking to yet other people). There really is a mental degeneration (You can see this for yourself in the comments other people leave in websites.) and addiction to stimulants. In fact, stress (and DIStress) is one of the main reasons why we have cancer far more often that the non-developed parts of the world, since stress compromises the body severely. Play, while easily abused, is never the less a necessary part of development, even while an adult. I wish I could keep up pace with the world, but I also hope, for the sake of the world and myself, that the world slows down to me. You can see for yourself how newspapers are being scandalous. I myself suffer from eating foods too quickly (yet there is the problem of ants and spoilage if I take TOO long when eating, a sad possibility due to me preferring to eat at the computer.) Rebellion (a problem that even I suffer) does cause people to want their own way, not knowing that they are just being a slave to impulses, their authorities having the experience to liberate them for the things that their subordinates really do want and shall really want. (The rebels do not want others to 'cramp their style,' but they fail to learn basic anatomy and lighting, much less on making a pleasing style!) There is an entropy in displayed morals, yet that is something that requires changing the hearts of people, though we can control this by 'starving' the problematic media (another bit of advice with which even I also struggle, my curiosity provoking me to see things that should not be seen), since they only proliferate if there are people to feed them. People all around us know that marriage feel into disarray. While legally-backed homosexuality (and, soon, polygamy), and, to an extent, abortion (regardless of the reason) have been causing their problems, marriage already fell in disarray when divorce (that is, breaking a lifetime vow), pornography (that is, selling the private bodies of people for your selfish desires), promiscuity, and birth control (that is, using a reproductive function for non-reproductive reasons and otherwise abusing the reproductive function) already led themselves to an array of evils.

Again, people would probably just skip my wall of text here, but I feel that I need to make my old-fashioned (whether for worse or better) opinion heard here. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

--
So, the argument has been going on for a long time. Does this comic imply that (1) we perceive that the pace of life was slower in the old days, but has always been as fast as it is today, or (2) that the pace of life has actually been speeding up for a very long time now? [[Special:Contributions/194.176.105.141|194.176.105.141]] 15:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
: I think that the pace of life has been speeding up for a long time now. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Added to the explanation, please correct any grammar, composition, or repetition mistakes, thank you. -- [[Special:Contributions/186.124.46.183|186.124.46.183]] 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone else notices that you can get the gist by only reading the bolded text? It's probably a just me. Anyone want to take the time to compile the bold text only and place it in the explination? [[User:Crsoccerfreak19|Crsoccerfreak19]] ([[User talk:Crsoccerfreak19|talk]]) 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

:I didn't see this before, but I think that work is a great idea. So my next job here is to work on that an checking if this does make sense. Thanks for your hint.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

------

I did an full update to the transcript. I used the existing parts here, many thanks to the contributors, the free web site [http://www.ocronline.com/ OCR Online] (the only one did work, in fact it did work as a hell) and {{w|LibreOffice Writer}} for changing the case to lower case. After that it was just some manual work without typing all that text.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The meaning I took from this comic was very much [[wikt:plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c'est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose|Plus ca change]]. There are translated Roman messages that say very similar things about the current state of Latin, and I bet even ''that'' was merely an inadvertent echo of prior ages. As one who can be very verbose with (at least ''intended'') correct spelling, grammar and vocabulary, I ''could'' go on at great length about how this works for the current day, but on this occasion shall restrain myself. Yours faithfully  [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:315: Braille

2013-06-19T20:32:22Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Don't know braille enough to sight-read (I know, but I certainly can't touch-read it, so I have to go on the visuals), but when I work out the cipher, each time, sometimes the..."

Don't know braille enough to sight-read (I know, but I certainly can't touch-read it, so I have to go on the visuals), but when I work out the cipher, each time, sometimes the 'translation' ''is'' revealed to be interesting, but more often than not there's a braille-enabled sign that doesn't seem to make sense in the first place. Mainly ones where the effort of finding the sign is probably a bigger handicap than dealing with what the sign says. "Push" on a 'next stop' button on a bus, that to me would seem obviously such a button if you make tactile contact with it in the first place (although the driver usually liaises with anyone with that sort of difficulty, anyway). "If you need any assistance, please ask" tacked down onto a reception desk, where any receptionist that is there would surely notice the blind person <strike>looking</strike> feeling around for such a 'handy' notice and so should intervene straight off the bat.

But the one that always gets me is the one that labels a WC's external light-switch. No other switches are labelled, around that area (nor anything else, save for the WC sign, high up on the door, surely difficult to examine or even ''imagine'' you should try to find to examine), and I can ''barely'' justify that sign by the possibility that a person might have bad sight in low light and have learnt braille to compensate, for which this is useful. But I just can't get past the thought that every reasonably sighted person and every 'reasonably blinded' person would have no use at all for the braille component, one way or another.

I stand to be corrected by anyone who knows better, of course. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 20:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:320: 28-Hour Day

2013-06-19T16:47:41Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "Uncanny, I've actually been up since 3am, today (Wednesday... at least I ''think'' it's Wednesday), which closely matches this comic that I've just coincidentally passed throu..."

Uncanny, I've actually been up since 3am, today (Wednesday... at least I ''think'' it's Wednesday), which closely matches this comic that I've just coincidentally passed through while browsing. Of course the reasons for this are different (it's too hot, and my seasonal hay-fever isn't helping me sleep either, and it's just crept over 17 hours of daylight, at this latitude).

And I can additionally attest from some (also unrelated) experiments in personal day-lengthening, several years back, that doing this long-term ''can'' cause noticable problems, even when planning several days ahead to ensure you synch up (or at least mesh compatibly) with various forthcoming appointments and commitments. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:326: Effect an Effect

2013-06-19T16:27:44Z

178.98.31.27:

Can someone explain the title text, thanks! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 14:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'd like to see that get added as well. I kind of assumed it was like taking a kill-count; one painting for each victim. I'm not sure what it specifically refers to, or what the origin of the term is. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 05:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:seen the silhouette images of enemy planes painted next to the pilots canopy on mid 20th century fighter planes? its a reference to that. i've only seen it in films but presumably where there's smoke there's fire. *edit for improved explanation: the images are painted by the pilot to show how many 'bogies' he's shot down,much like how cueball will paint the grammarian on his desktop as another victim. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 10:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
::"mid 20th century fighter planes"?? As opposed to what? Late 18th century fighter planes?[[Special:Contributions/86.44.215.73|86.44.215.73]] 02:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
:::As opposed to late 20th and 21st century fighter planes perhaps? [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::And assuming "mid 20th century" refers to World War II of 1939-45 (less years for Americans, arguably more so for some other countries), there were already gun-attached 'fighter aircraft' in WWI and onward (though often technically called "scouts" or "pursuit" aircraft, in English and American terminology, respectively... other countries/languages having their own varients). Maybe not from the ''very'' start of the 1914-18 conflict, as opposing aircrews were apparently quite friendly to each other for a while until some air-reconnaissance pilot took a pistol up with him (or perhaps it was originally a solution against airships, leastwise those that they could get high enough to attack). And then some people had the idea to hard-attach various projectile weapons to the planes. And, oh boy, they had fun for a while trying to mount them to fire through their own front propellers, didn't they? ;)
::::Anyway, the concept definitely had become engrained before the 'mid' 20thC, by whatever name. Did the Red Baron paint kills on his triplane? Did Biggles (fictionally) do so? Someone ought to actually research this. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:327: Exploits of a Mom

2013-06-19T16:02:37Z

178.98.31.27:

What about the daughter's name?[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 14:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

:I think that's embellished upon later in a series called l33t. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 15:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

After fixing my stupid undo I think this comic is still incomplete: What is the "driver's license factory" at the title text? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

:The common tale is that someone purchases some item or other with writing on it (or somewhere where writing can appear, on closer examination) and finds that this writing reads "Help, I'm trapped in a <item> factory", or similar, as appropriate to the object concerned. This suggests that someone is trapped (or perhaps even enslaved to work) within such a place and their only hope of escape is to make 'messages in a bottle' out of the product that leaves the facility. This is often extended to various fantastical situations, like the (British only?) joke about the stick of {{w|Rock_(confectionery)|sea-side rock}}.
:(Of course, the writing in sticks of rock generally starts to become unreadable (for normal-sized sticks) for any name larger than "Bridlington", although with care I suppose they've made them with a semi-legible "Western-super-Mare" set through them. But one aspect of this version of the joke could definitely well be that the theoretical SOS message wouldn't legibly fit.)
:So, anyway, Mrs Roberts (who waited for a number of years for Little Bobby Tables to grow up to school-age, for the illustrated exploit) is patiently waiting for her daughter to get to somewhere in her mid-teens, or later, all the while intending that she will get to spoof such a message from the local DMV's license-printing facility at some point. (Turns out that could be as 'soon' as her reaching 14-16 years of age for her first Learner license, depending on state.) Momma Roberts likes playing the long-game, it appears. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:328: Eggs

2013-06-19T15:18:49Z

178.98.31.27:

Megan is at a hotel bar and Cueball (the waiter) is asking her a question on her breakfast next morning. After that this comic looks much more like a {{w|Monty Python}} or {{w|Faulty Towers}} skit. But if that is true we need a reference.

BTW: Please follow all instructions here [[Help:How to add a new comic explanation]] when creating a new page.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My alternate take on the Title-Text is that the person looking for a priest and a rabbi is being (sarcastically? ...or totally ''not'' sarcastically?) told that they're indeed quite common in Singles Bars. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:332: Gyroscopes

2013-06-19T09:13:12Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with ""At the title text Randall is claiming mankind did not land on the moon because of lack of precession." should perhaps be more "...mankind did not land on the moon, but that (..."

"At the title text Randall is claiming mankind did not land on the moon because of lack of precession." should perhaps be more "...mankind did not land on the moon, but that (the existence of) precession mad it ''look'' like we did." At least, that's how ''I'' read that. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 09:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:345: 1337: Part 5

2013-06-19T08:38:00Z

178.98.31.27:

Does anyone know if such an IP address really exists, where you can point a streaming audio player at the right time to hear her "rock out"? [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 05:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

127.0.0.1 [[User:HitiadlfElaineR|HitiadlfElaineR]] ([[User talk:HitiadlfElaineR|talk]]) 08:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:344: 1337: Part 4

2013-06-19T08:30:04Z

178.98.31.27: Created page with "It's the piping of "find ~" (all files in Mom's current login's home directory) and "find ~nomad" (all files in the home directory of user "nomad", presumably that's Elaine's ..."

It's the piping of "find ~" (all files in Mom's current login's home directory) and "find ~nomad" (all files in the home directory of user "nomad", presumably that's Elaine's account also on Mom's machine, having recently been on a 'life journey' of self-discovery and learning) through the shred command that is doing the directory recursion, as part of the "find" command's default behaviour (IIRC). I've never used the shredding command myself, but I'd say that it's operating on the list given it by the "find", rather than doing the directory-burrowing itself, for which I'd expect parameters of a "~/* ~/.* -r" (or "-R" or "-s") type of variant to activate the "all files, in all directories from here" inspection... ICBW. Best to check the man pages, though... (Also Mom's obviously got maximum rights for herself, or is drilling through su, as I'd expect.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 08:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)