explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

xkcd

2025-08-04T04:12:05Z

2001:4450:8178:2200:600E:A770:CF20:58FD: /* The name xkcd */

<noinclude><div style="display:none;">__TOC__</div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''xkcd''}}
[[File:Terrible small logo.png|200px|right]]{{TOC}}{{Quote|A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.|[https://xkcd.com xkcd.com]}}

'''''xkcd''''' is a webcomic drawn by [[Randall Munroe]] and hosted at [https://xkcd.com xkcd.com]. It focuses on {{w|science}}, {{w|mathematics}}, {{w|technology}}, and general {{w|geek|geekiness}}, told with a light, quirky sense of humor, and at times profound philosophizing. Its art style is minimalist, told through simple [[stick figure]]s. New comics are posted every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and are accompanied by a [[Title text|title text]], serving as Randall's commentary.

==Style==
''xkcd'' comics are usually plain, predominantly black-and-white line drawings, but [[:Category:Comics with color|sometimes]] they make use of hues beyond the usual monochrome colors, even if it is just [[:Category:Comics with red annotations|red annotations]]. Although quite complex objects can be drawn, or conventionally cartoon-like representations of things and [[:Category:Squirrels|animals]], a majority of the people featured are [[stick figure]]s who have become a cast of recurring [[characters]]. The ''xkcd'' art style has undergone many changes over time. Initially, the comics were made by scanning hand-drawn sketches. However, they eventually transitioned to being entirely digitally inked and lettered. Another notable change was in the style of text used. While [[:Category:Comics with lowercase text|early comics featured sentence-case text]], Randall began writing in all-caps non-cursive handwriting with [[90: Jacket]]. It took several comics for this to become the standard practice. In the early days of ''xkcd'', Randall used [[:Category:Checkered paper|checkered paper]] with a grid for most of his initial drawings. This grid became a distinctive part of the style of the early ''xkcd'' comics, as it was used for most of his LiveJournal comics, and the last comic by date to use it was [[39: Bowl]]. The faint remains of gridlines in some comics suggest that Randall may have erased gridlines in these comics. In 2012, Randall revived the blue grid as a background image for ''[[what if? (blog)|what if?]]''.

Occasionally, Randall releases comics that go beyond the norm. These unique comics might involve user interactivity, utilize specific HTTP behaviors, or explore innovative graphic techniques, setting them apart from the ordinary static comics. He will use {{w|GIF#Animated GIF|animated GIFs}}, rather than standard formats, for some of the simpler [[:Category:Comics with animation|dynamic comic]] images and will engage with complex page and server-side scripting to present the reader with the more immersive or interactive content.

==The name ''xkcd''==
</noinclude>{{Quote|It's not actually an acronym. It's just a word with no phonetic pronunciation — a treasured and carefully-guarded point in the space of four-character strings.|[[Randall Munroe]]|[https://xkcd.com/about/ About xkcd]}}

{{Quote|Actually, I've been using [''xkcd''] as just a unique point in the space of four-character strings to point to me. I've been using it as my name on every service box since at least the nineties, because I got tired of changing my name every time my interest changed. I started out when I was 10 years old when AOL first popped up and I was on there as, I think I had, first, "Skywalker4", then "Animorph7", and then [...] other names [...] like "Redtailedhawk6" or something. Eventually, I was like, I'm tired of names that point to other things, that identify me with those things. I want to get a string that will just point uniquely to me that's not my name, because that's kind of boring. And so, I [decided] to generate random strings and find one that had a certain set of qualities, which included:
*''none of the letters could be mistaken for other letters [or] numbers, so no "L", because "L", lower-cased, can look like "i" or "1";''
*''it couldn't have any obvious acronym decoding [...] or be an existing acronym;''
*''it couldn't be pronounceable because then it would sound like [...] a word, and people would think of other words like it.''
''So, I searched though a bunch of names that weren't taken, until I found one that wasn't taken on all the services I wanted.|[[Randall Munroe]]|in a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v{{=}}zJOS0sV2a24#t{{=}}44m31s speech for Google]}}

According to the [https://xkcd.com/about ''xkcd'' FAQ] and [[Randall Munroe]] himself, the name ''xkcd'' doesn't stand for anything. He [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24#t=44m31s says] it originated as a previously unused random four-letter string which he used as his username on various internet services. <noinclude>See also the comic titled [[207: What xkcd Means]]. {{incomplete|Add more info on the correct capitalization ([https://xkcd.com/about/ should always be lowercase], and give some examples where he himself used the lowercase, uppercase , and "Xkcd" version.)}}
"xkcd" should always be either entirely lowercase (xkcd) or entirely uppercase (XKCD). Standard capitalization (Xkcd) should not be used. (see [https://xkcd.com/about/ here])

</noinclude>There are other theories about what ''xkcd'' might stand for:
* If each letter of the alphabet is [https://web.archive.org/web/20090908204959im_/http://explainxkcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/XKCD1.jpg mapped to 1 through 26], the sum of the values for "x", "k", "c", and "d" is equal to 42, which is the answer given to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything by the supercomputer in ''{{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}}''. However, according to Randall himself, this is a coincidence.{{Actual citation needed}}
* A [https://web.archive.org/web/20200728001540/https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/c2049n/the_names_mystery_unveiled/ now-deleted] Reddit account noted that typing "xkcd" on a Persian QWERTY keyboard returns "طنزی", which means satirical, sarcastic, and comic.
* "x", "k", "c", and "d" are consecutive letters when typed on a left-handed [[:Category:Dvorak|Dvorak]] keyboard.
* eXtra Keep Current Download
<noinclude>

==History==
:''Main article: [[LiveJournal]].''

{{:LiveJournal}}

[[Category:xkcd| 1]]{{xkcdmeta}}

3101: Good Science

2025-08-04T04:07:04Z

2001:4450:8178:2200:600E:A770:CF20:58FD:

{{comic
| number = 3101
| date = June 11, 2025
| title = Good Science
| image = good_science_2x.png
| imagesize = 387x833px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you think curiosity without rigor is bad, you should see rigor without curiosity.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|add explanations for predictors}}
[[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a class to [[Jill]] and a [[Cueball]]-like kid. Based on her opening statement "I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science." this is likely a general class on the principles of science, although it could be the start of a class on a specific field of science such as biology or physics. Classes about the principles of science (i.e. the scientific method, or what makes "good science") are common at the very introductory level, such as middle school science classes that give young students a basic framework to understand science, and also at the very advanced level, where PhD students take classes on the philosophy and history of science with detailed examination of epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ontology to be able to understand how their research affects the world.

However, Miss Lenhart explains that doing "good science" is hard, because research [https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/5-times-that-science-got-it-wrong often] [https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/ produces] [https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong incorrect] {{w|List of experimental errors and frauds in physics|results}}. She wonders what are the key things she should teach her students so that their scientific inquiry ends up being successful. She lists a series of items that are commonly suggested as leading to successful research, such as collaboration or skepticism, and explains that she performed a {{w|regression analysis}} (a mathematical technique often used in science), to find out which were most important. She concludes that the two most crucial factors are genuine curiosity about the subject (which makes sense as something that would drive scientists to achieve good results) and {{w|ammonium hydroxide}}, a chemical which does see some {{w|Ammonia_solution#Laboratory_use|laboratory use}}, but it does not obviously relate significantly to achieving good results (although it's often used to clean laboratory equipment, so it is possible that regular or thorough cleaning of equipment reduces experimental error).{{Actual citation needed}}

This may illustrate a potential problem with regression analyses caused by including too many predictor variables for the available data. This can cause random statistical noise in the sample to be interpreted as a meaningful effect.

When Jill points out that ammonium hydroxide is a nonsensical factor, Miss Lenhart replies that Jill is doing good science. The joke is that including ammonium hydroxide was just a means to get Jill to question the results. It also suggests that skepticism is actually the second crucial factor after genuine curiosity, as being skeptical of ammonium hydroxide as an important factor led to Jill's newfound success as a scientist. Alternatively, because Jill is being curious about how ammonia got onto the list, she is performing good science by using both curiosity and ammonia.

The title text addresses a common criticism in scientific circles that science is only good if it has rigor — that is, if it is well-documented and follows all of the proper procedure. It says that if curiosity without rigor is bad (in other words someone earnestly trying to figure out the answer, but doing it in a sloppy way) the opposite, rigor without curiosity, is much worse (a person who produces professional looking results but who doesn't care whether they are right or wrong). There are at least two issues with a scientist who is rigorous but uncurious. First is that, in the modern world, science has a very high social and cultural status, due to its incredible achievements over the past century and a half (from electric power to spaceflight to medical care). As a result, people tend to be very deferential to science, and the trappings of science (lab coats, clipboards, etc.) command respect. A rigorous but uncurious scientist could get people to believe more strongly in the wrong answer (for an example of how symbols like lab coats and clipboards can influence human behavior, see the {{w|Milgram experiment}}). Second, a rigorous scientist could become convinced of their performance because of their rigor, mistaking the outward process of science for science itself. In that case, beyond the initial wrong results due to their incuriosity, they could become resistant to changing their conclusions even when presented with decisive evidence to the contrary, sometimes to the point of suppressing other scientists who have reached the correct answer.

Randall has previously suggested that rigor is not as important in science as some make it out to be, when discussing ''{{w|MythBusters}}'' (see [[397: Unscientific]]).

:Outcome variable:
::• correct scientific results
:Predictors:
::• collaboration
::• skepticism of others' claims
::• questioning your own beliefs
::• trying to falsify hypotheses
::• checking citations
::• statistical rigor
::• blinded analysis
::• financial disclosure
::• open data

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Miss Lenhart is standing in front of a whiteboard with some scribbles on it.]
:Miss Lenhart: I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science.

:[Miss Lenhart is now standing in front of Jill and Cueball, who are seated at classroom desks.]
:Miss Lenhart: But what '''''are''''' those tools?
:Miss Lenhart: Methodology is hard and there are so many ways to get incorrect results.
:Miss Lenhart: What is the magic ingredient that makes for good science?

:[Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: To figure it out, I ran a regression with all the factors people say are important:
:[A list, presented in a sub-panel that Miss Lenhart is pointing to:]
:Outcome variable:
::• correct scientific results
:Predictors:
::• collaboration
::• skepticism of others' claims
::• questioning your own beliefs
::• trying to falsify hypotheses
::• checking citations
::• statistical rigor
::• blinded analysis
::• financial disclosure
::• open data
::[presumably the list goes on, as it runs off the visible part of the panel]

:[Another Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: The regression says two ingredients are the most crucial:
:1) genuine curiosity about the answer to a question, and
:2) ammonium hydroxide

:[Miss Lenhart, standing, and Jill, seated at desk]
:Jill: Wait, why did '''''ammonia''''' score so high? How did it even get on the list?
:Miss Lenhart: ...and now you're doing good science!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Comics featuring children]]

3101: Good Science

2025-08-04T04:05:59Z

2001:4450:8178:2200:600E:A770:CF20:58FD:

{{comic
| number = 3101
| date = June 11, 2025
| title = Good Science
| image = good_science_2x.png
| imagesize = 387x833px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you think curiosity without rigor is bad, you should see rigor without curiosity.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
[[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a class to [[Jill]] and a [[Cueball]]-like kid. Based on her opening statement "I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science." this is likely a general class on the principles of science, although it could be the start of a class on a specific field of science such as biology or physics. Classes about the principles of science (i.e. the scientific method, or what makes "good science") are common at the very introductory level, such as middle school science classes that give young students a basic framework to understand science, and also at the very advanced level, where PhD students take classes on the philosophy and history of science with detailed examination of epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ontology to be able to understand how their research affects the world.

However, Miss Lenhart explains that doing "good science" is hard, because research [https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/5-times-that-science-got-it-wrong often] [https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/ produces] [https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong incorrect] {{w|List of experimental errors and frauds in physics|results}}. She wonders what are the key things she should teach her students so that their scientific inquiry ends up being successful. She lists a series of items that are commonly suggested as leading to successful research, such as collaboration or skepticism, and explains that she performed a {{w|regression analysis}} (a mathematical technique often used in science), to find out which were most important. She concludes that the two most crucial factors are genuine curiosity about the subject (which makes sense as something that would drive scientists to achieve good results) and {{w|ammonium hydroxide}}, a chemical which does see some {{w|Ammonia_solution#Laboratory_use|laboratory use}}, but it does not obviously relate significantly to achieving good results (although it's often used to clean laboratory equipment, so it is possible that regular or thorough cleaning of equipment reduces experimental error).{{Actual citation needed}}

This may illustrate a potential problem with regression analyses caused by including too many predictor variables for the available data. This can cause random statistical noise in the sample to be interpreted as a meaningful effect.

When Jill points out that ammonium hydroxide is a nonsensical factor, Miss Lenhart replies that Jill is doing good science. The joke is that including ammonium hydroxide was just a means to get Jill to question the results. It also suggests that skepticism is actually the second crucial factor after genuine curiosity, as being skeptical of ammonium hydroxide as an important factor led to Jill's newfound success as a scientist. Alternatively, because Jill is being curious about how ammonia got onto the list, she is performing good science by using both curiosity and ammonia.

The title text addresses a common criticism in scientific circles that science is only good if it has rigor — that is, if it is well-documented and follows all of the proper procedure. It says that if curiosity without rigor is bad (in other words someone earnestly trying to figure out the answer, but doing it in a sloppy way) the opposite, rigor without curiosity, is much worse (a person who produces professional looking results but who doesn't care whether they are right or wrong). There are at least two issues with a scientist who is rigorous but uncurious. First is that, in the modern world, science has a very high social and cultural status, due to its incredible achievements over the past century and a half (from electric power to spaceflight to medical care). As a result, people tend to be very deferential to science, and the trappings of science (lab coats, clipboards, etc.) command respect. A rigorous but uncurious scientist could get people to believe more strongly in the wrong answer (for an example of how symbols like lab coats and clipboards can influence human behavior, see the {{w|Milgram experiment}}). Second, a rigorous scientist could become convinced of their performance because of their rigor, mistaking the outward process of science for science itself. In that case, beyond the initial wrong results due to their incuriosity, they could become resistant to changing their conclusions even when presented with decisive evidence to the contrary, sometimes to the point of suppressing other scientists who have reached the correct answer.

Randall has previously suggested that rigor is not as important in science as some make it out to be, when discussing ''{{w|MythBusters}}'' (see [[397: Unscientific]]).

Outcome variable:
• correct scientific results
Predictors:
• collaboration
• skepticism of others' claims
• questioning your own beliefs
• trying to falsify hypotheses
• checking citations
• statistical rigor
• blinded analysis
• financial disclosure
• open data

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Miss Lenhart is standing in front of a whiteboard with some scribbles on it.]
:Miss Lenhart: I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science.

:[Miss Lenhart is now standing in front of Jill and Cueball, who are seated at classroom desks.]
:Miss Lenhart: But what '''''are''''' those tools?
:Miss Lenhart: Methodology is hard and there are so many ways to get incorrect results.
:Miss Lenhart: What is the magic ingredient that makes for good science?

:[Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: To figure it out, I ran a regression with all the factors people say are important:
:[A list, presented in a sub-panel that Miss Lenhart is pointing to:]
:Outcome variable:
::• correct scientific results
:Predictors:
::• collaboration
::• skepticism of others' claims
::• questioning your own beliefs
::• trying to falsify hypotheses
::• checking citations
::• statistical rigor
::• blinded analysis
::• financial disclosure
::• open data
::[presumably the list goes on, as it runs off the visible part of the panel]

:[Another Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: The regression says two ingredients are the most crucial:
:1) genuine curiosity about the answer to a question, and
:2) ammonium hydroxide

:[Miss Lenhart, standing, and Jill, seated at desk]
:Jill: Wait, why did '''''ammonia''''' score so high? How did it even get on the list?
:Miss Lenhart: ...and now you're doing good science!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Comics featuring children]]

Category:Home Inspections

2025-08-04T02:02:30Z

2001:4450:8178:2200:600E:A770:CF20:58FD:

<noinclude>{{Incomplete|Remove bullet points}}</noinclude>
*At the beginning of 2025 [[Randall]] made a comic, [[3037: Radon]], where [[Ponytail]] inspects [[Cueball|Cueball's]] house and find problems with it, using a small hand held device. The problems, however, relates to the planet the house is build on, and not the building it self.
*Two months later the same happens again in [[3059: Water Damage]], completely the same setting, thus establishing these two comics as a series.
*Only time will tell if this will be an ongoing series, or stop with just those two.
**But given that the settings and the device and the joke is completely along the same lines, there is no doubt that these two first comics forms a series.
**This would be the first new [[:Category:Comic series|series]] since [[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]] which began in 2021, and the first where the two comics follow each other like an actual series since [[:Category:Alien Visitors|Alien Visitors]] which came out a bit earlier in 2021.
*Shortly after this series was started another comic, [[3070: Orogeny]], followed with a similar look on geology as part of house buying. Although that comic is reminiscent of the other two, there is no home to inspect, thus it cannot be part of this series.
**The comic [[3051: Hardwood]] is also playing with these ideas but that one is without Ponytail.
***If Randall, however, continues this kind of comics, then maybe there should be another category for the entire portfolio of such comics, but then this series here will be a sub category of such a series, since the two inspection comics are clearly a connected series in its own right.

[[Category:Miniseries]]

Category:Home Inspections

2025-08-04T01:57:18Z

2001:4450:8178:2200:600E:A770:CF20:58FD:

{{Incomplete|Remove bullet points}}
*At the beginning of 2025 [[Randall]] made a comic, [[3037: Radon]], where [[Ponytail]] inspects [[Cueball|Cueball's]] house and find problems with it, using a small hand held device. The problems, however, relates to the planet the house is build on, and not the building it self.
*Two months later the same happens again in [[3059: Water Damage]], completely the same setting, thus establishing these two comics as a series.
*Only time will tell if this will be an ongoing series, or stop with just those two.
**But given that the settings and the device and the joke is completely along the same lines, there is no doubt that these two first comics forms a series.
**This would be the first new [[:Category:Comic series|series]] since [[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]] which began in 2021, and the first where the two comics follow each other like an actual series since [[:Category:Alien Visitors|Alien Visitors]] which came out a bit earlier in 2021.
*Shortly after this series was started another comic, [[3070: Orogeny]], followed with a similar look on geology as part of house buying. Although that comic is reminiscent of the other two, there is no home to inspect, thus it cannot be part of this series.
**The comic [[3051: Hardwood]] is also playing with these ideas but that one is without Ponytail.
***If Randall, however, continues this kind of comics, then maybe there should be another category for the entire portfolio of such comics, but then this series here will be a sub category of such a series, since the two inspection comics are clearly a connected series in its own right.

[[Category:Miniseries]]

Comic series

2025-08-04T01:56:03Z

2001:4450:8178:2200:600E:A770:CF20:58FD: /* Miniseries */

<noinclude>{{TOC}}
:''For a list of the comic series, see [[:Category:Comic series]].''
:''Not to be confused with [[:Category:Comics sharing name|comic sharing name]].

</noinclude>The xkcd strips that are part of a [[Comic series|comic series]] are directly related to each other, rather than simply sharing a [[:Category:Comics by topic|recurring topic]]. A main series must be composed of at least three comics, while [[:Category:Miniseries|miniseries]] only need two to qualify; once they get their third comic, they graduate to a main series.

For comics to become part of a series, it must be clear that [[Randall]] intentionally created them as part of a series. This is usually inferred from similar patterns in the comics' titles ([[:Category:xkcd Phones|xkcd Phones]]) or captions ([[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]]), sequential numbers in the titles ([[:Category:Stargazing|Stargazing]]), release dates purposefully deviating from the normal schedule ([[:Category:Journal|Journal]]), a partnership with other artists ([[:Category:Guest Week|Guest Week]]) or companies ([[:Category:A Smarter Planet|A Smarter Planet]]), or Randall simply posting a list of all the comics that are part of a series ([[:Category:The Boy and his Barrel|The Boy and his Barrel]]).

Many of the early comic series have been released in a series of five consecutively released comics, with each episode being released on a weekday. After 2010, no series followed a similar release schedule, as they all followed the normal schedule of three comics a week.<noinclude>

==Main series==
This is a chronological list of all the series created by Randall. This list is sorted based on the release date of the third comic in a series.

=== [[:Category:The Boy and his Barrel|The Boy and his Barrel]] ===

: {{:Category:The Boy and his Barrel}}

=== [[:Category:Red Spiders|Red Spiders]] ===

: {{:Category:Red Spiders}}

=== [[:Category:Opening dialogue by Scott|Opening dialogue by Scott]] ===

: {{:Category:Opening dialogue by Scott}}

=== [[:Category:Parody Week|Parody Week]] ===

: {{:Category:Parody Week}}

=== [[:Category:Choices|Choices]] ===

: {{:Category:Choices}}

=== [[:Category:1337|1337]] ===

: {{:Category:1337}}

=== [[:Category:Journal|Journal]] ===

: {{:Category:Journal}}

=== [[:Category:Secretary|Secretary]] ===

: {{:Category:Secretary}}

=== [[:Category:A Smarter Planet|A Smarter Planet]] ===

: {{:Category:A Smarter Planet}}

=== [[:Category:The Race|The Race]] ===

: {{:Category:The Race}}

=== [[:Category:Five-Minute Comics|Five-Minute Comics]] ===

: {{:Category:Five-Minute Comics}}

=== [[:Category:Guest Week|Guest Week]] ===

: {{:Category:Guest Week}}

=== [[:Category:xkcd Phones|xkcd Phones]] ===

: {{:Category:xkcd Phones}}

=== [[:Category:Choices|Choices]] ===

: {{:Category:Choices}}

=== [[:Category:Substitution|Substitution]] ===

: {{:Category:Substitution}}

=== [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality]] ===

: {{:Category:Code Quality}}

=== [[:Category:Bad Map Projections|Bad Map Projections]] ===

: {{:Category:Bad Map Projections}}

=== [[:Category:X Years|X Years]] ===

: {{:Category:X Years}}

=== [[:Category:Stargazing|Stargazing]] ===

: {{:Category:Stargazing}}

=== [[:Category:1/Xth Scale World|1/Xth Scale World]] ===

: {{:Category:1/Xth Scale World}}

=== [[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]] ===

: {{:Category:Cursed Connectors}}

=== [[:Category:Unsolved Problems|Unsolved Problems]] ===

: {{:Category:Unsolved Problems}}
==Miniseries==
This is a chronological list of all the miniseries created by Randall. This list is sorted based on the release date of the second comic in a series.

=== [[:Category:The Uncomfortable Truths Well|The Uncomfortable Truths Well]] ===

: {{:Category:The Uncomfortable Truths Well}}
=== [[:Category:Android Partner|Android Partner]] ===

:{{:Category:Android Partner}}
=== [[:Category:Online Communities|Online Communities]] ===

: {{:Category:Online Communities}}
=== [[:Category:Etymology-Man|Etymology-Man]] ===

:{{:Category:Etymology-Man}}
=== [[:Category:Exoplanet Names|Exoplanet Names]] ===

:{{:Category:Exoplanet Names}}
=== [[:Category:Synonym Movies|Synonym Movies]] ===

:{{Category:Synonym Movies}}
=== [[:Category:Time-Traveling Sphere|Time-Traveling Sphere]] ===

: {{:Category:Time-Traveling Sphere}}
=== [[:Category:ISS Solar Transit|ISS Solar Transit]] ===

: {{:Category:ISS Solar Transit}}
=== [[:Category:Horror Movies|Horror Movies]] ===

: {{:Category:Horror Movies}}
=== [[:Category:Coronavirus Genome|Coronavirus Genome]] ===

: {{:Category:Coronavirus Genome}}
=== [[:Category:Old Days|Old Days]] ===

: {{:Category:Old Days}}
=== [[:Category:Hamster Ball|Hamster Ball]] ===

: {{:Category:Hamster Ball}}
=== [[:Category:Alien Visitors|Alien Visitors]] ===

: {{:Category:Alien Visitors}}
=== [[:Category:Home Inspections|Home Inspections]] ===

: {{:Category:Home Inspections}}

Category:Home Inspections

2025-08-04T01:53:06Z

2001:4450:8178:2200:600E:A770:CF20:58FD:

*At the beginning of 2025 [[Randall]] made a comic, [[3037: Radon]], where [[Ponytail]] inspects [[Cueball|Cueball's]] house and find problems with it, using a small hand held device. The problems, however, relates to the planet the house is build on, and not the building it self.
*Two months later the same happens again in [[3059: Water Damage]], completely the same setting, thus establishing these two comics as a series.
*Only time will tell if this will be an ongoing series, or stop with just those two.
**But given that the settings and the device and the joke is completely along the same lines, there is no doubt that these two first comics forms a series.
**This would be the first new [[:Category:Comic series|series]] since [[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]] which began in 2021, and the first where the two comics follow each other like an actual series since [[:Category:Alien Visitors|Alien Visitors]] which came out a bit earlier in 2021.
*Shortly after this series was started another comic, [[3070: Orogeny]], followed with a similar look on geology as part of house buying. Although that comic is reminiscent of the other two, there is no home to inspect, thus it cannot be part of this series.
**The comic [[3051: Hardwood]] is also playing with these ideas but that one is without Ponytail.
***If Randall, however, continues this kind of comics, then maybe there should be another category for the entire portfolio of such comics, but then this series here will be a sub category of such a series, since the two inspection comics are clearly a connected series in its own right.

[[Category:Miniseries]]