explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1552: Rulebook

2026-05-14T23:13:01Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Doesn't ''the law'' forbid harming another's domestic animal? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 05:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:Well, probably not absolutely, because self-defense against dangerous dogs is rarely prosecuted as far as I know. The question's moot though - if we're being really realistic, we need to also account for the fact that Bud is probably playing uninsured, that he's definitely either not maintaining the minimum GPA for organised sports or not even enrolled in the school and thus someone is committing fraud, probably a couple of things about yelling and cheering at a dog in a big bright room at scheduled times, idk if that counts as cruelty but I'd hate it. And that's assuming he's had all his shots and stuff, otherwise it's like, reckless endangerment of any child who hasn't already suffered through a bout of Dog Mites or whatever they have (disclaimer: not a vet)[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.185|141.101.106.185]] 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yes. Yes it does. So, basically, the rulebook of the country says they cannot do it. It could have been a great cartoon if he had picked an example that was actually legal. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.32|198.41.239.32]] 05:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
::Well, technically ([[1475: Technically]]) the law isn't part of any rule book... Unless there is a law (or rule) which says otherwise. (edit: That doesn't mean the law wouldn't apply nevertheless!)[[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:Does this law exist in every country? The dog is on property owned by the sports venue in an unspecified country.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 08:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Slaughter is not technically harming, otherwise we would not be able to eat beef, pork, .. -- and yes some people _do_ eat dogs (and cats) [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:: If an animal enters your premise and is not a protected species, you may kill it. If the owners wanted it alive they shouldn't have let it illegally trespass, since it usually only illegal to kill domestic animal on their domicile.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.9|108.162.219.9]] 00:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
:At least in my state (Utah) ''the law'' supports euthanasia of (non-human) animals so long as it is performed in a humane manner (which is a very different standard than applies to humans). Cruelty is punishable in the law, but one could make an argument that so long as the killing of the animal was done in a humane way, it may not be punishable by the cruelty statutes. The judgment of law enforcement officers, officers of a court with jurisdiction, juries, and perhaps the court of public opinion in some extra-legal context would all come into play if a question of whether euthanasia was cruel were to be raised. [[User:CasaDeRobison|CasaDeRobison]] ([[User talk:CasaDeRobison|talk]]) 14:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
::I don't think you can euthanize someone else's animal though, unless the court has ordered it. I'm pretty sure you'd be guilty of theft & destruction of private property.
:::Ya, killing and eating the dog would be a crime. You'd go to jail for theft (or something like unto it), have to pay to replace the dog and for killing him in the first place, and probably have to forfeit the game when you get arrested for disturbing the peace and using a weapon in the court. Never mind whatever harm you caused to the people trying to defend the dog. Of course, when you get out, if your muscles haven't atrophied and you aren't banned from the game, the enemy team will have lost their key player... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.179|108.162.238.179]] 16:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Keep in mind the location of this comic isn't clear. In some countries, it is legal to kill and eat dogs. (Or at least, it isn't explicitly ''illegal''.) [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

On a mostly unrelated note: In at least one movie, the sports-playing dog has only three legs.
:"But, why is the dog missing a leg?" 'Well, a dog that good you don't eat all at once!' - old joke
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.19|108.162.221.19]] 22:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Amusingly, Air Bud is also wrong because the basketball rules say that a team consists of five men, and dogs are not men. --[[User:AndyZ|AndyZ]]
:That can be argued, if Air Bud is a male dog. Besides, "baseball is a game of two teams of 9 players each", but then they go and use the Designated Hitter. So Air Bud is just the Designated Dog. [[User:PsyMar|PsyMar]] ([[User talk:PsyMar|talk]]) 07:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Designated Hitler! --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.151|173.245.53.151]] 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
::: Hey godwins law [[261]]
I'm reminded of what Paul said to the Galatians: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law." Life is meant to be lived in this positive way, where the more of these "fruits" we express, the better we make the world. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)''

:Here endeth the lesson. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is related to Pluto at all. In the Air Bud movie, the dog's jersey reads K on one side, and 9 on the other. I think the 9 is in reference to this, and not a veiled commentary on planet definitions. {{unsigned|Strangequark}}
:I rewrote the Pluto section to incorporate this and to also note that this particular comic came out immediately after the New Horizons fly-by. Given Randall's penchant for this type of scientific reference, I'm more inclined to believe this is not a coincidence, but rather a subtle message that takes a couple of degrees of connection to form. He has been known to do that in the past. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 21:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Pluto?? Come on, let's remove that. I know some people are really traumatized about the whole Pluto thing, but there's no need to see ghosts everywhere... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.5|141.101.104.5]] 15:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The intentional foul is also referencing basketball when the losing team will intentionally foul the winning team late in the game so that the clock may stop. The winning team can only get 0,1, or 2 points from this then the losing team can try to quickly get 2 or 3 points making it "worth it" [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.126|173.245.50.126]] 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am an Israeli and 1552 is about to be very very useful in describing the actions of my government. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.114|162.158.91.114]] 19:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

;Battlebots
I guess no one else watches BattleBots here.
 A few weeks ago, in the second episode, [http://www.google.com/search?q=battlebots+Complete+Control+net the "Complete Control" team used a net against their opponent], citing the fact that the "no entanglement" rule which had previously existed had been removed from the rulebook. [https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ Randall states he watches the show in What-if #5], so I think it's likely that Randall watched this new episode, and that this comic at least partially references it, although I concede that it's odd that he waited several weeks before doing so.
 Also, I think the connection between the 9 and Pluto is tenuous, but I concede that it's possible given the timing. -[[User:452|452]] ([[User talk:452|talk]]) 15:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:Battlebots might have served as an inspiration for the timing of this comic, but given that these kinds of loopholes are exploited in virtually everything, I doubt he was referring specifically to it. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
::Quite a few comics are inspired by, and refer to, recent events without actually mentioning the events, such as [[1560: Bubblegum]] comic. "Roddy Pipers death" is to "1560: Bubblegum" as "the BattleBots net incident" is to "1552: Rulebook". Both comics stand on their own, but have a little extra if you know these recent events. Do you know of any other recent events that might be related to this? -[[User:452|452]] ([[User talk:452|talk]]) 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Many sports, especially youth sports, have rules specifying a player's minimum age. It's very likely that a dog could be excluded on those grounds. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.249|162.158.2.249]] 16:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)1

:Most league sports require the player to wear footwear meeting certain requirements as well. This would surely impede Buds dunkability. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.184|108.162.215.184]] 23:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)BLuDgeons

A dog is a "canine" which, depending on your dialect of English, can sound like "K 9".
[[User:WL15|WL15]] ([[User talk:WL15|talk]]) 00:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no reference to ''Babe'' in this comic. Reference means ''to write or speak about something/somebody, especially without giving much information''. In this case zero information about Babe is given. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
:I actually agree with you here - in the first draft that I started revising, the writer had made specific mention of the "pathos" of Babe, but a more recent revision has pretty much removed that. The loophole in this case really has solely to do with Air Bud. I'll remove the Babe reference. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Are we really just going to let that whole section on Pluto stay there because the number 9 appeared in the comic? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.138|108.162.210.138]] 18:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
:I totally agree - the Pluto part just completely ruins the explanation for me. Same goes for the weird and out of thin air reference to the dog name Pluto - seriously please remove these. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.81|141.101.92.81]] 06:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC) WS
::I read through this again and outlined all of the links in this theory. While I still think it's possible that Randall was making a statement here, the one link that would clinch it was too tenuous: The dog's name in the film is "Buddy", and he is never called "Pluto" at any point. So there was no real basis to bring the name popularity into this, nor the connection to Disney's Pluto - the only link there was that a dog was involved, which isn't enough. I pulled that whole part of the explanation, at least until we have something more definite from Randall to set us straight. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 22:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

:I first came across this page after the whole "Pluto incident", which I only know about from the comments, and I'm glad it has been removed. I think I can help settle things if some people still think it should be mentioned: the comic references ''Air Bud'', but the presence of a dog and a rulebook may not be enough to bring the movie to people's minds. Therefore, the "9" serves to identify the dog as the one from ''Air Bud''. Also, always keep [[915]] in mind: the more I read this wiki, the more I see it's importance. [[User:GuiRitter|GuiRitter]] ([[User talk:GuiRitter|talk]]) 19:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't look at this comic and not immediately think of the history of American-Rules football, which circa 1900 was all about thinking about what wasn't in the rulebook, and using it to advantage. Radiolab did an entire episode about it, in particular the Carlisle Indians, an all-native-American-Indian team who, among other things, used special jerseys to hide the football so the opposing team wouldn't know where it was, and on another occasion, ran out of bounds, downfield, and then back in bounds to catch a pass. Basically, passing for a touchdown wasn't even a common thing until the Carlisle Indians did it. See http://www.radiolab.org/story/photos-carlisle-football/ for some great photos of the team that caused more rulebook changes than any other. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.187|162.158.255.187]] 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

[https://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/01/20/episode-374-so-many-valid-points/ "That's madness!" "That's Air Bud."]

Talk:1000: 1000 Comics

2026-05-14T23:04:10Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Cueball does not think in multiples of 2, he thinks in base 2 (or powers of 2). I fixed it. [[Special:Contributions/134.102.123.217|134.102.123.217]] 10:35, 10 September 2012‎ (UTC)

In the original Blog format of this website, someone named Phillip had [http://www.explainxkcd.com/2012/01/06/1000-comics/#comment-19950 shared the following]:
:"Spoiler ( https://rot13.com ): Pbaarpg gur ovanel ahzoref ba gur fznyy fvtaf va cnvag-ol-ahzoref znaare."
Hint: copy/paste the weird looking text into the text field provided in the above mentioned website. Even after decryption, I couldn't follow what he meant, but I was hoping someone out there can do so and then explain it differently, thanks. It's a real mystery. [[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 08:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
: Added hidden image to Trivia section. --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 11:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just curious... The explanation says there are 1000 characters in the drawing. Are there 998 + Megan & Cueball? or do they make 1002? --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 11:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

: The transcript says "1000 characters ... are arranged to create the number "1000". Two more people stand in the foreground" so I think Megan & Cueball make it 1002. [[User:Coombeseh|Coombeseh]] ([[User talk:Coombeseh|talk]]) 10:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a WOPR machine saying "would you like to play a game?" [[Special:Contributions/116.76.165.167|116.76.165.167]] 05:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed Barrel Boy isn't on here... [[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
: Barrel Boy is bottom right on the second "O", just above "WOOOO!" [[User:Coombeseh|Coombeseh]] ([[User talk:Coombeseh|talk]]) 10:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well about what cueball says another interesting fact is that the number 1024 is used commonly in computer data, 1024 megabytes makes a gigabyte and so on...

:So, has anyone noticed that this wasn't actually Randall's thousandth comic, but rather his 999th? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User talk:Schiffy|talk]]) 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
::Is there a numbered comic that was omitted?[[Special:Contributions/74.213.186.41|74.213.186.41]] 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes, comic 404 never existed, remember? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User talk:Schiffy|talk]]) 17:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Comic 404 was "Journal 3". [[Special:Contributions/121.54.48.38|121.54.48.38]] 04:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::Or maybe Comic 404 DID exist, However was left behind within the bowels of abandoned comics... Never got into xkcd to fill the gap... Because it's place was replaced with the 404 page. [[Special:Contributions/121.54.48.38|121.54.48.38]] 04:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Well, All hope is no use, I googled up "xkcd 404" and it gave no results about a 404th comic ever existed, Nor "xkcd no 404" or "xkcd's 404th comic", I guess we have to discuss about this in here: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=80760 [[Special:Contributions/121.54.48.38|121.54.48.38]] 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Even this very site shows that Comic 404 never existed. Comic 403 was on a Monday, and 405 was the following Wednesday. The day in between those two (the Tuesday of that week) was April 1st. For further proof, see [http://xkcd.com/404 here]. [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 17:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Hey, that's the April's fool from 2008. The 404 message is from Randall!!! Check the page source: [http://xkcd.com/404/ April, 1]--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Not quite true. See link -> [http://comicjk.com/comic.php/404] {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.57}}
::::::::::Hi IP 108.162.245.57, your link shows a comic not done by [[Randall]]. The 404 page is just empty and that's the joke. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::And since this discussion [[404]] has been created on this page as well. {{unsigned|Kynde}}
::::::::::::this is linked to every single catagory bro
Aha the amount of references to lots of different comics is amazing! [[User:Nyx goddess|Nyx goddess]] ([[User talk:Nyx goddess|talk]]) 00:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
:(Moved the comment)[[User:Nyx goddess|Nyx goddess]] ([[User talk:Nyx goddess|talk]]) 00:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

;The "1000 Characters" section
I really don't see why it should be there. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.71|108.162.216.71]] 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:I did remove this. All the 1,000 comics are explained here very well. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
::I think we are missing out on this section. I would like to have a separate page for this as we have for other larger comics. And also a separate transcript with the text that can be read on the large picture. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::And now it is being created, and categories belonging to this comic is being added. This makes sense comparing with all other large comics explanation pages. It is relevant to know that there are also hamster ball, boomerangs, kites, Richard Stallman and Star Wars lightsabers etc. But it's a huge work and it is not yet complete... To make it possible [[1000: 1000 Comics/Numbered images|a numbered image]] has been created and the [[1000: 1000 Comics/1000 characters|table with description of all 1000 characters]] are in progress. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Cipher text: CONNECT THE BINARY NUMBERS ON THE SMALL SIGNS IN PAINT-BY-NUMBERS MANNER [[User:Jwoodward48xkcd|Jwoodward48xkcd]] ([[User talk:Jwoodward48xkcd|talk]])

Following with this wiki's goal of explaining the nuances of the XKCD comics I moved the connect the dots puzzle out of trivia and placed it int the main article. It isn't a spoiler or just trivia, it fits well with the title text and is definitely not something a casual reader would find on the first pass through the comic. [[User:Chriswampler|Chriswampler]] ([[User talk:Chriswampler|talk]]) 13:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is this still Incomplete? Unless someone wants to catalog all 1000 characters, there's not much left to do.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.83|173.245.55.83]] 17:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:Well there is someone who wish to do that, and it is happening right now. So that's why it is incomplete (again) now. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Useless fact: 1024 is also a round number in base 4 and base 32. {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.108}}

The mathematical definition of a round number is not dependent on a "base", but upon the prime factors of the number; i.e., all prime factors must be less than the square root of the number. Thus, 1000 is round because its prime factors are 2 and 5 which are under 32 and so is 1024 which has only the prime factor of 2.--DrMath 07:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:That is not the mathematical definition. Your definition would make 10 not a round number, but 161803398 and 161803398874 round numbers. Whether a number is round is intimately related to the represention of that number in specific bases. The more trailing zeroes, preferably all but one or two, the rounder the number is. The wikipedia page on this topic even uses 1024 as an example how numbers may be round in one base, but not others. [[User:FatPhil|FatPhil]] ([[User talk:FatPhil|talk]]) 09:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

;Celebrations

MIT hackers commemorated [[1000]] by posting all xkcd comics ever published around Lobby 7, a high traffic entryway near 77 Mass Ave. The comics were attached to both pillars and walls (using easily removable adhesive so as to avoid damaging the walls). http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2012/xkcd_1000/ [[User:Tericee|Tericee]] ([[User talk:Tericee|talk]]) 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:… sadly they misspelled his last name as “Monroe” on the page that you linked to. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.229|162.158.114.229]] 22:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. There is no Darth Vader and not a single raptor in this drawing :( {{unsigned ip|162.158.86.59}}
:But a lightsaber and a squirrel can be found though ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:3137: Cursed Number

2026-05-14T22:58:07Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Warning! Do not read! 421827639108237885847650045004 --[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 22:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:Oh no, too late! bdbdbalasdfsdfoiubtasdf [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::Well, at least you knew that reading the string "bdbdbalasdfsdfoiubtasdf" was the only antidote! [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 23:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Maybe it's safe if you read it scientifically? ~4.218276391088547650045x1029?--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 23:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Edit: NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 23:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:isn't it just 854327335721902̷̨̧͉̼̲̒͛́̏͑̃͊͗̃̈́̎́̕͝4̷̝͉̹̜̘͎͕̬̞͔̣̠̘̆̒̅̂̈̾͆̂̎̓̽̒͂͆̚5̴͈̬̙̂̈́̈͊́͝2̸̡͈̘̼̼͇̙̣͎͚̀̆̃͆̉̍͋̉͘̕͜͝8̴̨͔̣̍̆̇̍̓̾̿͛͋̀̈̈́͠͝7̴̢̧̟̘̠͙̮̘͕͕͈̹̆͌̀̋̋̔͜͠5̷̟̼͉̯̹̜̬̜̦͕̭̺͙́̈̅͒̑̏̏͑̔̍̌͘͝͠͝ͅͅ6̵̟͔̦͙̘̞̙̫͈̩̠̰̎͒̒̒̌͌̽̑̓̚3̷̢͈͕͚̦̰͇̳̥̂̂͒̔́̈́̈́̾̅̌̚2̸̧̦͔͔͕̞̝͍̼̳̪̎͌̈̈́́͌̃͛̕͠9̷̢̟̖̦̭͕̬̜̝̼͖̋̀̂̆̌͐0̷̛̺̭̹̰͌́̑̕1̶̛̛͓̜̦̻̰̪͓̱̝̫͎͍̲̾͌̀̐̍̒̍͌̇͂͑? {{unsigned ip|37.40.140.119|15:43, 10 October 2025}}

Not pictured - an MTF team breaking into the compound and abducting the original authors while clean-up arrives with amnestics. {{unsigned|Xurkitree10|10:25, 4 September 2025}}
: An MtF team wielding Blahaj and Monster Energy, breaking into the compound and abducting the transphobic authors [[Special:Contributions/2601:19B:4287:6680:FD8B:1D14:2B2:50F4|2601:19B:4287:6680:FD8B:1D14:2B2:50F4]] 01:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? [[Special:Contributions/76.209.228.203|76.209.228.203]] 23:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
: I'm a German. You <snicker> did this on purpose <guffaw> right? AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:6CFB:CAF1:B89F:C57E|2A02:2455:1960:4000:6CFB:CAF1:B89F:C57E]] 09:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:: What? That's {{W|The Funniest Joke in the World}}. [[Special:Contributions/76.209.228.203|76.209.228.203]] 14:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
: Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:946:7000:A8C8:9A1C:6D1F:790C|2600:1700:946:7000:A8C8:9A1C:6D1F:790C]] 20:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I—BAHAHAHAHA《プロキシ》(XKCD中毒者) 21:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This comic is the best comic in a while [[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug Pentium FDIV Bug] is a math error when handling specific rarely-encountered numbers. {footnote: over 30 years ago!!} No FDIV deaths are reported, but we might not know. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:ahaha 0.1+0.2 goes brrt (e.g. = 0,30000000000000004) [[Special:Contributions/81.89.66.133|81.89.66.133]] 08:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:: FWIW the double-precision value closest to 0.1 is exactly 0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 (that's 7205759403792794/256) [[Special:Contributions/76.209.228.203|76.209.228.203]] 14:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:: It wasn't a normal floating point rounding thing, but rather an error in a lookup table used *recursively* in division calculations -- it could cause errors as early as the fourth decimal point when dividing two 7-digit integers (and possibly earlier with different, more complicated inputs). it was really bad [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:946:7000:A8C8:9A1C:6D1F:790C|2600:1700:946:7000:A8C8:9A1C:6D1F:790C]] 20:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have a different interpretation of this comic than the one in the explanation. See, I think it makes more sense that due to the infinite nature of numbers, it can be said that there may exist one that happens to be a severe cognitohazard, rather than there certainly being one such number in the comic's universe. [[User:HoneyBadger|HoneyBadger]] ([[User talk:HoneyBadger|talk]]) 01:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I found this number years ago, while reading a hexadecimal dump of an image file, and yes, it is just as potent, possibly more so, in hexadecimal. Want to know what it is? It starts (in hex of course) DEADFACEABEDEFACEDAFADEDBADBEADEDBEDAD before going off into more ‘normal’ digits. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:8B1D:C283:21DE:C9A5:72EB:C044|2607:FB90:8B1D:C283:21DE:C9A5:72EB:C044]] 03:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:Oh, magic numbers. What about a ''0x31124837h'' pointer?  [[Special:Contributions/81.89.66.133|81.89.66.133]] 08:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

SCP nerd here, I think the article should link to a different SCP. SCP-033 isn't really a good example of a cognitohazard, since it affects written/digital storage, not the mind/brain. [https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-012 SCP-012] for example would be a closer fit. (CW: somewhat graphic self harm) --[[User:Muno|Muno]] ([[User talk:Muno|talk]]) 04:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:Speaking of SCP, there's one that's very similar to this. Unfortunately it's only available in Japanese, [http://scp-jp.wikidot.com/scp-1051-jp SCP-1051-JP]. It is about large prime numbers that causes death if viewed while being recognized as a prime number. [[Special:Contributions/124.144.180.57|124.144.180.57]] 16:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

If one supposes that reading the cursed number inside another number is also bad, then for you to have at most a 1/2 chance of reading it in a string of numbers with the bounds given in the comic, you would have to read 1.8*10^21 digits strung together [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 05:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:I got a lower bound of 3.12E15 digits, assuming the number is aperiodic. [[Special:Contributions/216.171.48.25|216.171.48.25]] 13:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:Taking an average reading speed of 40 digits per second, that would take the reader a trillion years. [[Special:Contributions/46.144.8.194|46.144.8.194]] 07:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
::Good. Trillion years divided by 9 billion people still gives 111.(1) years of non-stop reading. [[Special:Contributions/81.89.66.133|81.89.66.133]] 08:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This also exists for computer science in the form of weird code《プロキシ》(XKCD中毒者) 21:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Neal Stephenson's Snowcrash features a visual "virus" that causes neurological damage to hacker's minds when they see a carefully crafted image. This XKCD might be a slight reference to this, too. {{unsigned ip|91.233.139.14|10:31, 4 September 2025}}
:Another literary example would Max Barry's ''{{w|Lexicon (novel)|Lexicon}}''. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 11:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:Strange that nobody mentioned [https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-001 SCP-001]. Also {{w|BLIT_(short_story)|BLIT}} is related obviously --[[Special:Contributions/2A06:C701:4D78:0:7F56:89BF:2BB3:1DA0|2A06:C701:4D78:0:7F56:89BF:2BB3:1DA0]] 12:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait, it's a real, nonnegative number? Dammit, I was WAY off! [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 14:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:I take psychic damage when I see -1 after spending way too much time writing a function that only expects positive integers with no error handling (I'm not very good) [[Special:Contributions/174.77.66.51|174.77.66.51]] 16:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
::Speaking of bad error handling, one of the first programs I made was a country-building simulator. I had a friend play it. A prompt asked how much of the national budget to put into the navy. My friend misunderstood the prompt COMPLETELY and typed in "boats" and the program proceeded to spam output with "boatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboatsboats" millions of time, took up all the processing time and made the PC unusable until the entire OS crashed. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 20:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Should we include Roko's Basilisk in the list of information hazards? Just feels like it's relevant. {{unsigned ip|216.93.213.106|16:59, 4 September 2025}}
: Or manual breathing. [[Special:Contributions/172.58.113.84|172.58.113.84]] 17:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

According to jewish mysticism, there is a name of god of length 216 letters/numbers that let you conjure. Also referred to in the movie Pi {{unsigned|DaveK|18:30, 4 September 2025}}

New around here but... I just added a paragrap explaining that 128-bit numbers (or up to 39 decimal digits) are more common than Randall suggests. I'd be surprised if he was surprised by this. Start of a new series...? Or maybe I'm overthinking it. [[User:Tsgsh|Tsgsh]] ([[User talk:Tsgsh|talk]]) 20:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this comic possibly in reference to the recent developments in the Busy Beaver problem? (Taken ad absurdum, of course.) --[[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:FF0E:400:1455:42BD:D223:A669|2600:8800:FF0E:400:1455:42BD:D223:A669]] 00:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel like there's a separate joke here. Mathmeticians are going insane, so they form a (questionable) theory that a cursed number is the cause -- when in fact it likely has something to do with the field of mathematics itself. I remember my math professor from college saying something along the lines of "Math isn't a mentally safe profession, quite a number of us loose our minds."

So the cursed number is a red-herring. The title text alludes to this fact: that mathematicians will intentionally go down paths that lead to insanity because they feel drawn towards it. {{unsigned ip|67.190.17.105|14:16, 5 September 2025}}

Regarding the bit in the explanation about representations of the cursed number in different bases, presumably it is the specific string of characters that is cursed. Otherwise, I could declare 10 to be in the cursed number base, and then ... chaos. Surely someone would have done that by now. And if it *is* a specific string of characters, the cursed number thus has a different value in different bases - consider that if the cursed string is 123, then I could write that in base 10 to have a value of 123d, or I could write that in base 4 to have a value of 99d, etc. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.46|163.116.254.46]] 16:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

10^22 has 23 digits (one 1 and twentytwo 0s), so "greater than a 10^22, or 10 sextillion" should be corrected to "greater than 10^21, or a sextillion". [[Special:Contributions/84.208.77.216|84.208.77.216]] 19:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the humor/joke is that mathematics had so few PSA in real life compared to other scientific fields. The only one I can think of was about what probabilities mean during covid. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:BC0:8481:AC39:BD12:6AEC:364C|2607:FB91:BC0:8481:AC39:BD12:6AEC:364C]] 22:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
: I agree. I think the idea is similar to XKCD 208 ("Everybody Stand Back. I know Regular Expressions."). Here the mathematicians' efforts to put bounderies on seemingly pointless numbers has some real world importance.[[User:Aqua-chestnut|Aqua-chestnut]] ([[User talk:Aqua-chestnut|talk]]) 13:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a similar concept to the short story Different Kinds of Darkness, by David Langford. --[[Special:Contributions/35.143.89.131|35.143.89.131]] 01:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reminds me of the "ten billion human second century" number Matt Parker came up with. [[Special:Contributions/216.206.51.106|216.206.51.106]] 14:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

WAKE UP SHEEPLE OPEN UR EYES! - [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/12:_Poisson Someone From Pluto]{{Citation needed}} (p.s. ull se me latr(p.s.s. go to the footnote labyrinths page for original appearence. dont tell))

Talk:243: Appropriate Term

2026-05-14T22:56:57Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

"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)

: I really enjoyed this rant, thank you. In part because of its level of nerdy detail, in part because I genuinely learnt something about these funny little joysticks, and largely because of the "but I digress" at the end of a multi-paragraph description of cursor moving algorithms. [[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 20:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

:: You're welcome. ;) (Wow, very nearly ten years ago! But, yes, 'twas indeed I who wrote that. And, yes, I ''still'' often do digress. Nor have I stopped being an IP-only contributor.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.201|172.70.85.201]] 22:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Rather then 'very informal,' perhaps we move the tone to 'erotic?' {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.167}}

Is it worth mentioning that men also have breasts, and nipples? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 21:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

my friends and i call it the red button thingy [[User:An user who has no account yet|An user who has no account yet]] ([[User talk:An user who has no account yet|talk]]) 22:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

WAKE UP SHEEPLE OPEN UR EYES!!!! - [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/12:_Poisson Someone From Pluto]{{Citation needed}} (p.s. ull se me latr(p.s.s. go to the footnote labyrinths page for original appearence. dont tell))

Talk:1208: Footnote Labyrinths

2026-05-14T22:55:34Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Way to nerd-snipe me, Randall. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In the nested-footnotes interpretation, 5 has to be ignored: The 6 must be true, and the 6 says that it’s “actually a 1”, but with footnote 2+2 which says “ibid.” and thus equals footnote 3, which is true. So 6 really ''does mean'' actually a 1, which leaves 5 to be ignored. --[[Special:Contributions/77.186.8.191|77.186.8.191]] 10:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The footnote for 6 is actually 1 to the 2 to the 2 [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaination is wrong : abc = a(bc) = ab^c (confer the definition of a gogol = 10^100 = 10102, and a gogolplex = 10^gogol = 10(10100), not 10^110. So since 1^2= 1, No12 really means No1. {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:Yes, so "no1" means to ignore the "no" and the answer for the second explanation is "we found evidence for the data." By the way, it's spelled "googol." [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

;Question, alternative explination

I wasn't really satisfied with the whole discarding of the infinite loop, so I worked through the problem seperately using the nested footnotes. Then, when we hit the infinite loop I split between the two possible answers (either the infinite loop ends on true or false). As I read it, they both get the same answer:

no (3)

no (not true (5))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < 3))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < (not true))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true 3 < 2)))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true (5)))))

Split!

If 6 is false (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 2)

no (not true (7)) - meaningless, so discard

no (not true)

My Hobby: Posting "WAKE UP SHEEPLE OPEN YOUR EYES!!" on random explainxkcd talk pages. - Remember not to talk about /b/ - [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/12:_Poisson Someone From Pluto]{{Citation needed}} (p.s. ull se me latr)

If 6 is true (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 2 < 2)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 4)

no (3 < 5 < 1)

no (3)

no (not true)

Both lead to the answer "... experiments to observe this and we found evidence for it in our data". {{unsigned|‎Urah}}

:Yes, but at each stage you may "''toggle between interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes and interpreting them as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1).''" That is, a23 may ''either'' be read as "apply note 8 (=2mod6) to text ''a''", or as "apply note 3 to text "2", then the result to text ''a''". {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:There are differences in interpretation here. If we write "foo36", is it equal to "foo112" or "foo3112"? I assumed the former and you assumed the latter. My reasoning is that footnotes modify their arguments and not themselves. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 5 be true (because 6 is actually 13; therefore 5 is true2133; so the 2 is ignored regardless the truth of 3) and 3 is not true? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.118.249|178.26.118.249]] 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

'''Yet another alternative solution:''' Footnotes should be evaluated from top to bottom, so "no12" = "no1 + 2" = "no3". We turn to the definition of 3, which is "not true32" = "not true3 + 2" = "not true5".

Now 5 is "true263". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 122 = 1(4. ibid.) = 13, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true5", getting us into an infinite loop. However, 263 must evaluate to 1, because otherwise we're incrementing "true" by 2, which is meaningless. This means that 3 must be equal "not true". 63 = "actually a 1"33 = "actually a 1". 5 becomes true1 which just says to ignore this footnote altogether and we can confirm that 3 is indeed not true (not true5 = not true). So the answer is that the "no" is not true, and the correct statement is "we found ''some'' evidence for it in our data." Phew. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discouraging anyone from coming up with more alternate solutions, but would it be fair to say that part of the point is that there are multiple equally legit ways to run this labyrinth, and that some exit where you ignore the 'no', others exit on the other side where you don't ignore it. and then there's those who won't exit because they're busy making a map. - [[Special:Contributions/70.72.16.171|70.72.16.171]] 23:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the proof from ''This means that 3 = "true"''. Why do you assume that footnote has to be either "true" or "false? I think it could be "ignore this", "increment by three before following", "leave the whole calculation and assume we have two pieces of evidence" etc. as well. [[Special:Contributions/178.56.1.144|178.56.1.144]] 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:Given the footnotes' definitions I don't think it's possible to ever come up with "increment by three before following" ;)
:Actually the solution I gave may be not strictly formal, but it gives some intuition why it seems to be the only valid one.
:The fact that the definitions are recursive doesn't imply that the ultimate answer cannot be resolved. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing is this, "No means No.", yes?[[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 19:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a real strange logic, but "No = No" means "Yes" --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

;Footnote logic:

So... I did some footnote logic, and came up with this:

This explanation will treat footnotes as footnotes, with the order of operations from top-down, with footnotes acting on only the object they are attached to, including other footnotes.

1. no^1^2

2. no^3

3. no(not true^3^2)

4. no(not (true^5))

5. no(not (true^2^6^3))

The ^6 says the ^2 is actually a 1^2^2, but the ^3 says that the ^6 is "not true^3^2". This leads us to an infinite loop, as the "not true^3^2" in step 3 led to the addition of the additional "not true^3^2".

I assume that the loop can be reduced down to either "true" or "not true", for the purposes of following this path. I will explore both options.

if infinite loop is true:

6a. no(not true^1^2^2) (replacing 2 with 1^2^2 as per 6)

7a. no(not true^1^4)

8a. no(not true(ignore(not true^3^2))) (infinite loop again)

I guess we'll split once more.

if second loop is true:

9aa. no(not (true(ignore(not true)))) (as the second loop reduced to true, we have no more footnotes)

10aa. no(not true) (since the "ignore" this exponent was not true, we can remove it)

And we finally have something simple. No is not true, so evidence was actually found.

if second loop is false:

9ab. no(not (true(ignore(not (not true))))) (again, with the second loop reduced to "not true", we have no more footnotes)

10ab. no(not (true(ignore)))

11ab. no(not)

This is a bit more confusing, as we're ignoring the true as per step 10ab, and are just left with no^not. I'm going to take this to mean true, as in, again, evidence was found.

if first loop is false:

6b. no(not (true^2)) (the ^6 which said that the ^2 was actually a 1^2^2 was negated by the ^3 (which we declared as false for this leg), therefore both the ^3 and the ^6 can be reduced to nothing.)

No idea how to proceed here, as true is not a footnote, and can't be followed or incremented.

If we just ignore the ^2, we're left with the same as 10aa. That is, evidence was again found.

Alternatively, we can say that because ^5==false led us to a nonsensical result, then ^5 must always reduce to true, meaning that the only acceptable answer is to follow the path to 10aa.

Any way you slice it, evidence was certainly found.

[[User:Kalzekdor|Kalzekdor]] ([[User talk:Kalzekdor|talk]]) 22:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

;Read the title text
The title text says that you have to toggle between interpreting footnotes and calculating them (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). And all calculations using the plus sign for exponents are wrong. 32 is 3*3 and not 3+2.

:Interpreting footnotes:
:no12 - 1ignore this
:no2 - 2increment by 2
:no4 - 4IBID -> footnote before
:no3 - 3not true32
:yes32

:Calculation:
:32 = 9 -> 9-1 = 8 -> 8 modulo 6 = 2 -> 2 plus 1 = 3
:yes3

:Interpreting footnotes is again the same as before:
:yes3
:no32

So I am also on an infinite loop and footnotes 5 and 6 are never used.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

you are all wrong and I would presume there is no solution as title popup says '''every time''' you read it you should toggle... so I'm afraid everyone could arrive to different solution.
[[Special:Contributions/87.239.45.58|87.239.45.58]] 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Cyp

(A) I don't follow the last comment. You toggle only when you read the mouseover. For most people, only once: i.e., try it the other way.
(B) Should 1 be interpreted as a message to the reader or a comment on the footnoted phrase? If the latter, then as exponents, it is 1x1=1, or ignore the "no". If the former, then as exponents, move on to footnote 2, then 4, then 3 and stop there--"not true 3x3" cannot be evaluated. When interpreting as footnotes, then the footnote on No1 also cannot be evaluated as footnote 3 is an endless loop of 3-2-4-3-2-4... There is no opportunity to arbitrarily stop at "true" or "not true" as one commenter suggests because one never reaches the point of evaluating the self-referential 3 on the third footnote. Or it so it seems to me. [[Special:Contributions/114.171.110.105|114.171.110.105]] 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

;Where is the EDIT WAR here???
There is an update here today to the latest update on November 17. 2013; where is the actual WAR??? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 01:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:I am the anonymous editor who made the last edit before the page was protected. I suspect my frustrated summaries made the administrators believe there was a war. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it in a a different way.
no ^ 1 ^ 2 means footnote 1) to the word "no" and footnote 2) to footnote 1. Thus we got:
No (ignore this) (2)
no (ignore this) (increment by 2 before following) - so use 4) instead of 2)
no (ignore this) (4)
no (ignore this (ibid) - so use 3) instead of 3)
no (ignore this) (3)
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(2)
As 2) take us to 3) via 4) we got
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(3)
Now we can replace both (3)'s with '(not true) (3)(2)', but... they are the same. It does not matter if they are true or not, because we can A) apply 'not true' to the phrase 'not true', which results in 'true', or B) apply 'true' to the 'true' phrase, which results in the same answer, so:
no (ignore this) (not true)
Not true makes us ignoring footnote 1, and in consequence, footnoted 'no' from the very beginning stays the same.
I could alt, but It's 4p.m. and I'm heading home from office. 8-)
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.219|141.101.88.219]] 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Koovert

testing a thing here
jc{{unsigned ip|162.158.34.4}}

== It is meaningless to increment a phrase by 2 ==

Increment by 2 = add 2 = ignore this 2 = ignore this too, implying there's another ¹ somewhere earlier. Such word games wouldn't be out of character for whoever would write such a terrible mess. (Though at doesn't explain the 'before following' part.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.112|172.68.182.112]] 19:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:As I understand it, you are incrementing the one by two, leading you to three, which leads to an infinite loop of 3 and 5. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

House of Leaves reference, anyone? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.161|108.162.238.161]] 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:285: Wikipedian Protester

2026-05-14T22:55:06Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

[http://www.google.com link title]I wanna sneakily add {{Citation needed}} to EVERYTHING on the article -- [[Citation Needed on Wheels]]
: There is too much seemingly-spam edits that attempt to insert "citation needed" on various pages on this wiki. Many of these attempts got reverted. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:: It seems to amuse some people, who may have just discovered the idea. More annoying than the attempt to tag every paragraph (at least once!) in every article, or so it seems, is not understanding that the tag goes on the ''other'' side of the punctuation (comma, and/or sentence/parenthetical ending), or plonking it down mid-sentence with seemingly no thought to "why there?".
:: As we have had a recent string of misplaced zeal (an IP, like me and you, so hard to tie down or try to tell them where they're going wrong), I suspect a newbie to the site. But it seems we have some people (other than me) who either edit or revert such 'errors'. Which is nice. Maybe newbie'll take note and pick up the art of subtlety. Or at least the conventional style. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.35|172.70.90.35]] 09:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::: This appeared again twice in [[2466]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.220|172.69.22.220]] 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Does this need a citation? --[[User:Dalonacueball|Dalonacueball]] ([[User talk:Dalonacueball|talk]]) 16:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:No.{{Citation needed}} [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
My favorite {{Citation needed}} joke was the fact that the Wikipedia article for "{{w|List of cetacean species|List of Whales}}" used to have "Cetacean Needed" if it was missing an image or scale diagram of the creature in question. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 05:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:Still does! Thanks for pointing that out. [[User:Zeusfaber|Zeusfaber]] ([[User talk:Zeusfaber|talk]]) 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:Checked last week, there's still a cetacean needed for the page to be complete. [[User:ChessCake|ChessCake]] ([[User talk:ChessCake|talk]]) 22:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:Some anonymous wikipedia editor was enjoying themselves far too much when writing that wiki. Its so genius that no-one has changed it yet! Wikipedia is normally maintained pretty well for the big pages{{Citation needed}}. sam0fc 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::Amazingly, it's still there! There's 12 of them still! [[User:Lettherebedarklight|aoijgpisbHtejsykl7ekderhtsjk6r64os4kys\\\[]jsrtjgdrghtvgwrhtejyku5dli6;78t7l6rk5j4h|||||#Rty-----WWWWWWfflfllfllfllfeogk0q9wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww4-cv;c;;c;c[;]z\]d;v[\]????????OH GOD IT'S CRASIHNG MY PC��]] ([[User talk:Lettherebedarklight|talk]]) 12:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::If you check the discussion, people have tried to change it before. But, strictly speaking, "cetacean needed" goes where they need an image of a cetacean. No citation is needed at all, and it is 100% fair to say that (an image of) a cetacean is, in fact, needed. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa|talk]]) 08:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::One left, though there's 4 [citation needed]'s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.206|172.68.7.206]] 01:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the politician in this comic (from almost nine years ago) look suspiciously like Mr. Trump?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.129|162.158.85.129]] 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
:Nah, this one has better hair.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.29|173.245.56.29]] 00:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
:Plus, this came out a long time before he became...big.{{Citation needed}} [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 19:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
::Don't know how you define "big," but by most definitions Trump has in fact been "big" since *long* before this comic. {{Citation needed}} [[User:Abcasada|Abcasada]] ([[User talk:Abcasada|talk]]) 22:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Huh, in my memory, this comic specifically included the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident". I guess not - but I wonder if some Wikipedians would consider a {{Citation needed}} for that one? [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 19:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. [[User:AnonymousSub61|AnonymousSub61]] ([[User talk:AnonymousSub61|talk]]) 15:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean you can play [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/game SMBC's game] using this website? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.250|162.158.89.250]] 15:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
: I had the same idea! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.193|108.162.221.193]] 14:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
: you just won [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-04-26 the game] [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

[http://smbc-comics.com Funtime Activity]: Create citations for all pages with {{citation needed}} in them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.88|172.69.68.88]] 02:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

== xkcd Volume 0 (book) ==

The page with this strip (11011) also contains a note to a character"

GHNHIYTOTNNNBSFOEVYYVT

NAQGYIUAEIEAIAEURFYV

GULGBIREOUKEGEAEEPFQ

VQYLEDVYSRNVNJULRNAQTVZOY

RVEYOHRHEWSWHAGURJNO

RNYYZVZFDESFYIEIOPELJR

ERGUROBEBRLGNVNLSDKETEBI
{{unsigned ip|172.69.214.108|23:21, 11 January 2024}}

:FYI, the character is Reddit's snoo mascot. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.72|172.69.214.72]] 02:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== Alternatives for use on Wikipedia talk pages ==

Alternatives for use on Wikipedia talk pages (don't use these in articles; that would be vandalism): These alternatives are formatted to look exactly like the normal citation needed, but lead to other uses of the words. This tends to remain as an undiscovered easter egg because pretty much nobody actually clicks on citation needed links. You can test these without actually changing Wikipedia by using the show preview button and not using the save changes button.

For use in a Wikipedia talk page comment:

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

For use as the edit summary (no formatting needed) when adding the above:

<pre>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]</pre>

<pre>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]</pre>

<pre>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]</pre>

<pre>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]</pre>

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.174|172.69.33.174]] 15:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}} -[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/12:_Poisson Someone From Pluto]{{Citation needed}}
== Addition to Trivia ==
The subtext of Xkcd 285 is "SEMI-PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION". I just checked, and the "Constitution of the United States" Wikipedia article is Semi-protected, as is the "Constitution" article. Should this be listed in the trivia section?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.229|162.158.158.229]] 02:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:285: Wikipedian Protester

2026-05-14T22:53:42Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

[http://www.google.com link title]I wanna sneakily add {{Citation needed}} to EVERYTHING on the article -- [[Citation Needed on Wheels]]
: There is too much seemingly-spam edits that attempt to insert "citation needed" on various pages on this wiki. Many of these attempts got reverted. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:: It seems to amuse some people, who may have just discovered the idea. More annoying than the attempt to tag every paragraph (at least once!) in every article, or so it seems, is not understanding that the tag goes on the ''other'' side of the punctuation (comma, and/or sentence/parenthetical ending), or plonking it down mid-sentence with seemingly no thought to "why there?".
:: As we have had a recent string of misplaced zeal (an IP, like me and you, so hard to tie down or try to tell them where they're going wrong), I suspect a newbie to the site. But it seems we have some people (other than me) who either edit or revert such 'errors'. Which is nice. Maybe newbie'll take note and pick up the art of subtlety. Or at least the conventional style. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.35|172.70.90.35]] 09:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::: This appeared again twice in [[2466]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.220|172.69.22.220]] 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Does this need a citation? --[[User:Dalonacueball|Dalonacueball]] ([[User talk:Dalonacueball|talk]]) 16:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:No.{{Citation needed}} [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
My favorite {{Citation needed}} joke was the fact that the Wikipedia article for "{{w|List of cetacean species|List of Whales}}" used to have "Cetacean Needed" if it was missing an image or scale diagram of the creature in question. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 05:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:Still does! Thanks for pointing that out. [[User:Zeusfaber|Zeusfaber]] ([[User talk:Zeusfaber|talk]]) 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:Checked last week, there's still a cetacean needed for the page to be complete. [[User:ChessCake|ChessCake]] ([[User talk:ChessCake|talk]]) 22:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:Some anonymous wikipedia editor was enjoying themselves far too much when writing that wiki. Its so genius that no-one has changed it yet! Wikipedia is normally maintained pretty well for the big pages{{Citation needed}}. sam0fc 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::Amazingly, it's still there! There's 12 of them still! [[User:Lettherebedarklight|aoijgpisbHtejsykl7ekderhtsjk6r64os4kys\\\[]jsrtjgdrghtvgwrhtejyku5dli6;78t7l6rk5j4h|||||#Rty-----WWWWWWfflfllfllfllfeogk0q9wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww4-cv;c;;c;c[;]z\]d;v[\]????????OH GOD IT'S CRASIHNG MY PC��]] ([[User talk:Lettherebedarklight|talk]]) 12:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::If you check the discussion, people have tried to change it before. But, strictly speaking, "cetacean needed" goes where they need an image of a cetacean. No citation is needed at all, and it is 100% fair to say that (an image of) a cetacean is, in fact, needed. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa|talk]]) 08:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::One left, though there's 4 [citation needed]'s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.206|172.68.7.206]] 01:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the politician in this comic (from almost nine years ago) look suspiciously like Mr. Trump?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.129|162.158.85.129]] 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
:Nah, this one has better hair.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.29|173.245.56.29]] 00:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
:Plus, this came out a long time before he became...big.{{Citation needed}} [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 19:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
::Don't know how you define "big," but by most definitions Trump has in fact been "big" since *long* before this comic. {{Citation needed}} [[User:Abcasada|Abcasada]] ([[User talk:Abcasada|talk]]) 22:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Huh, in my memory, this comic specifically included the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident". I guess not - but I wonder if some Wikipedians would consider a {{Citation needed}} for that one? [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 19:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}. [[User:AnonymousSub61|AnonymousSub61]] ([[User talk:AnonymousSub61|talk]]) 15:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean you can play [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/game SMBC's game] using this website? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.250|162.158.89.250]] 15:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
: I had the same idea! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.193|108.162.221.193]] 14:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
: you just won [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-04-26 the game] [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

[http://smbc-comics.com Funtime Activity]: Create citations for all pages with {{citation needed}} in them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.88|172.69.68.88]] 02:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

== xkcd Volume 0 (book) ==

The page with this strip (11011) also contains a note to a character"

GHNHIYTOTNNNBSFOEVYYVT

NAQGYIUAEIEAIAEURFYV

GULGBIREOUKEGEAEEPFQ

VQYLEDVYSRNVNJULRNAQTVZOY

RVEYOHRHEWSWHAGURJNO

RNYYZVZFDESFYIEIOPELJR

ERGUROBEBRLGNVNLSDKETEBI
{{unsigned ip|172.69.214.108|23:21, 11 January 2024}}

:FYI, the character is Reddit's snoo mascot. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.72|172.69.214.72]] 02:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== Alternatives for use on Wikipedia talk pages ==

Alternatives for use on Wikipedia talk pages (don't use these in articles; that would be vandalism): These alternatives are formatted to look exactly like the normal citation needed, but lead to other uses of the words. This tends to remain as an undiscovered easter egg because pretty much nobody actually clicks on citation needed links. You can test these without actually changing Wikipedia by using the show preview button and not using the save changes button.

For use in a Wikipedia talk page comment:

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

<pre><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></pre>

For use as the edit summary (no formatting needed) when adding the above:

<pre>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]</pre>

<pre>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Northern European Enclosure Dam|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]</pre>

<pre>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]</pre>

<pre>[[Edsel Citation|Citation]] [[Nee!|Nee]][[Ded Moroz|ded]]</pre>

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.174|172.69.33.174]] 15:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}} -[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/12:_Poisson Someone From Pluto{{Citation needed}}]
== Addition to Trivia ==
The subtext of Xkcd 285 is "SEMI-PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION". I just checked, and the "Constitution of the United States" Wikipedia article is Semi-protected, as is the "Constitution" article. Should this be listed in the trivia section?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.229|162.158.158.229]] 02:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1208: Footnote Labyrinths

2026-05-14T22:51:22Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Way to nerd-snipe me, Randall. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In the nested-footnotes interpretation, 5 has to be ignored: The 6 must be true, and the 6 says that it’s “actually a 1”, but with footnote 2+2 which says “ibid.” and thus equals footnote 3, which is true. So 6 really ''does mean'' actually a 1, which leaves 5 to be ignored. --[[Special:Contributions/77.186.8.191|77.186.8.191]] 10:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The footnote for 6 is actually 1 to the 2 to the 2 [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaination is wrong : abc = a(bc) = ab^c (confer the definition of a gogol = 10^100 = 10102, and a gogolplex = 10^gogol = 10(10100), not 10^110. So since 1^2= 1, No12 really means No1. {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:Yes, so "no1" means to ignore the "no" and the answer for the second explanation is "we found evidence for the data." By the way, it's spelled "googol." [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

;Question, alternative explination

I wasn't really satisfied with the whole discarding of the infinite loop, so I worked through the problem seperately using the nested footnotes. Then, when we hit the infinite loop I split between the two possible answers (either the infinite loop ends on true or false). As I read it, they both get the same answer:

no (3)

no (not true (5))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < 3))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < (not true))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true 3 < 2)))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true (5)))))

Split!

If 6 is false (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 2)

no (not true (7)) - meaningless, so discard

no (not true)

My Hobby: Posting "WAKE UP SHEEPLE OPEN YOUR EYES!!" on random explainxkcd talk pages. - Remember not to talk about /b/ - [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/12:_Poisson Someone From Pluto{{Citation needed}}] (p.s. ull se me latr)

If 6 is true (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 2 < 2)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 4)

no (3 < 5 < 1)

no (3)

no (not true)

Both lead to the answer "... experiments to observe this and we found evidence for it in our data". {{unsigned|‎Urah}}

:Yes, but at each stage you may "''toggle between interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes and interpreting them as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1).''" That is, a23 may ''either'' be read as "apply note 8 (=2mod6) to text ''a''", or as "apply note 3 to text "2", then the result to text ''a''". {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:There are differences in interpretation here. If we write "foo36", is it equal to "foo112" or "foo3112"? I assumed the former and you assumed the latter. My reasoning is that footnotes modify their arguments and not themselves. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 5 be true (because 6 is actually 13; therefore 5 is true2133; so the 2 is ignored regardless the truth of 3) and 3 is not true? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.118.249|178.26.118.249]] 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

'''Yet another alternative solution:''' Footnotes should be evaluated from top to bottom, so "no12" = "no1 + 2" = "no3". We turn to the definition of 3, which is "not true32" = "not true3 + 2" = "not true5".

Now 5 is "true263". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 122 = 1(4. ibid.) = 13, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true5", getting us into an infinite loop. However, 263 must evaluate to 1, because otherwise we're incrementing "true" by 2, which is meaningless. This means that 3 must be equal "not true". 63 = "actually a 1"33 = "actually a 1". 5 becomes true1 which just says to ignore this footnote altogether and we can confirm that 3 is indeed not true (not true5 = not true). So the answer is that the "no" is not true, and the correct statement is "we found ''some'' evidence for it in our data." Phew. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discouraging anyone from coming up with more alternate solutions, but would it be fair to say that part of the point is that there are multiple equally legit ways to run this labyrinth, and that some exit where you ignore the 'no', others exit on the other side where you don't ignore it. and then there's those who won't exit because they're busy making a map. - [[Special:Contributions/70.72.16.171|70.72.16.171]] 23:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the proof from ''This means that 3 = "true"''. Why do you assume that footnote has to be either "true" or "false? I think it could be "ignore this", "increment by three before following", "leave the whole calculation and assume we have two pieces of evidence" etc. as well. [[Special:Contributions/178.56.1.144|178.56.1.144]] 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:Given the footnotes' definitions I don't think it's possible to ever come up with "increment by three before following" ;)
:Actually the solution I gave may be not strictly formal, but it gives some intuition why it seems to be the only valid one.
:The fact that the definitions are recursive doesn't imply that the ultimate answer cannot be resolved. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing is this, "No means No.", yes?[[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 19:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a real strange logic, but "No = No" means "Yes" --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

;Footnote logic:

So... I did some footnote logic, and came up with this:

This explanation will treat footnotes as footnotes, with the order of operations from top-down, with footnotes acting on only the object they are attached to, including other footnotes.

1. no^1^2

2. no^3

3. no(not true^3^2)

4. no(not (true^5))

5. no(not (true^2^6^3))

The ^6 says the ^2 is actually a 1^2^2, but the ^3 says that the ^6 is "not true^3^2". This leads us to an infinite loop, as the "not true^3^2" in step 3 led to the addition of the additional "not true^3^2".

I assume that the loop can be reduced down to either "true" or "not true", for the purposes of following this path. I will explore both options.

if infinite loop is true:

6a. no(not true^1^2^2) (replacing 2 with 1^2^2 as per 6)

7a. no(not true^1^4)

8a. no(not true(ignore(not true^3^2))) (infinite loop again)

I guess we'll split once more.

if second loop is true:

9aa. no(not (true(ignore(not true)))) (as the second loop reduced to true, we have no more footnotes)

10aa. no(not true) (since the "ignore" this exponent was not true, we can remove it)

And we finally have something simple. No is not true, so evidence was actually found.

if second loop is false:

9ab. no(not (true(ignore(not (not true))))) (again, with the second loop reduced to "not true", we have no more footnotes)

10ab. no(not (true(ignore)))

11ab. no(not)

This is a bit more confusing, as we're ignoring the true as per step 10ab, and are just left with no^not. I'm going to take this to mean true, as in, again, evidence was found.

if first loop is false:

6b. no(not (true^2)) (the ^6 which said that the ^2 was actually a 1^2^2 was negated by the ^3 (which we declared as false for this leg), therefore both the ^3 and the ^6 can be reduced to nothing.)

No idea how to proceed here, as true is not a footnote, and can't be followed or incremented.

If we just ignore the ^2, we're left with the same as 10aa. That is, evidence was again found.

Alternatively, we can say that because ^5==false led us to a nonsensical result, then ^5 must always reduce to true, meaning that the only acceptable answer is to follow the path to 10aa.

Any way you slice it, evidence was certainly found.

[[User:Kalzekdor|Kalzekdor]] ([[User talk:Kalzekdor|talk]]) 22:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

;Read the title text
The title text says that you have to toggle between interpreting footnotes and calculating them (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). And all calculations using the plus sign for exponents are wrong. 32 is 3*3 and not 3+2.

:Interpreting footnotes:
:no12 - 1ignore this
:no2 - 2increment by 2
:no4 - 4IBID -> footnote before
:no3 - 3not true32
:yes32

:Calculation:
:32 = 9 -> 9-1 = 8 -> 8 modulo 6 = 2 -> 2 plus 1 = 3
:yes3

:Interpreting footnotes is again the same as before:
:yes3
:no32

So I am also on an infinite loop and footnotes 5 and 6 are never used.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

you are all wrong and I would presume there is no solution as title popup says '''every time''' you read it you should toggle... so I'm afraid everyone could arrive to different solution.
[[Special:Contributions/87.239.45.58|87.239.45.58]] 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Cyp

(A) I don't follow the last comment. You toggle only when you read the mouseover. For most people, only once: i.e., try it the other way.
(B) Should 1 be interpreted as a message to the reader or a comment on the footnoted phrase? If the latter, then as exponents, it is 1x1=1, or ignore the "no". If the former, then as exponents, move on to footnote 2, then 4, then 3 and stop there--"not true 3x3" cannot be evaluated. When interpreting as footnotes, then the footnote on No1 also cannot be evaluated as footnote 3 is an endless loop of 3-2-4-3-2-4... There is no opportunity to arbitrarily stop at "true" or "not true" as one commenter suggests because one never reaches the point of evaluating the self-referential 3 on the third footnote. Or it so it seems to me. [[Special:Contributions/114.171.110.105|114.171.110.105]] 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

;Where is the EDIT WAR here???
There is an update here today to the latest update on November 17. 2013; where is the actual WAR??? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 01:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:I am the anonymous editor who made the last edit before the page was protected. I suspect my frustrated summaries made the administrators believe there was a war. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it in a a different way.
no ^ 1 ^ 2 means footnote 1) to the word "no" and footnote 2) to footnote 1. Thus we got:
No (ignore this) (2)
no (ignore this) (increment by 2 before following) - so use 4) instead of 2)
no (ignore this) (4)
no (ignore this (ibid) - so use 3) instead of 3)
no (ignore this) (3)
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(2)
As 2) take us to 3) via 4) we got
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(3)
Now we can replace both (3)'s with '(not true) (3)(2)', but... they are the same. It does not matter if they are true or not, because we can A) apply 'not true' to the phrase 'not true', which results in 'true', or B) apply 'true' to the 'true' phrase, which results in the same answer, so:
no (ignore this) (not true)
Not true makes us ignoring footnote 1, and in consequence, footnoted 'no' from the very beginning stays the same.
I could alt, but It's 4p.m. and I'm heading home from office. 8-)
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.219|141.101.88.219]] 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Koovert

testing a thing here
jc{{unsigned ip|162.158.34.4}}

== It is meaningless to increment a phrase by 2 ==

Increment by 2 = add 2 = ignore this 2 = ignore this too, implying there's another ¹ somewhere earlier. Such word games wouldn't be out of character for whoever would write such a terrible mess. (Though at doesn't explain the 'before following' part.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.112|172.68.182.112]] 19:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:As I understand it, you are incrementing the one by two, leading you to three, which leads to an infinite loop of 3 and 5. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

House of Leaves reference, anyone? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.161|108.162.238.161]] 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1208: Footnote Labyrinths

2026-05-14T22:43:08Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Way to nerd-snipe me, Randall. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In the nested-footnotes interpretation, 5 has to be ignored: The 6 must be true, and the 6 says that it’s “actually a 1”, but with footnote 2+2 which says “ibid.” and thus equals footnote 3, which is true. So 6 really ''does mean'' actually a 1, which leaves 5 to be ignored. --[[Special:Contributions/77.186.8.191|77.186.8.191]] 10:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The footnote for 6 is actually 1 to the 2 to the 2 [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaination is wrong : abc = a(bc) = ab^c (confer the definition of a gogol = 10^100 = 10102, and a gogolplex = 10^gogol = 10(10100), not 10^110. So since 1^2= 1, No12 really means No1. {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:Yes, so "no1" means to ignore the "no" and the answer for the second explanation is "we found evidence for the data." By the way, it's spelled "googol." [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

;Question, alternative explination

I wasn't really satisfied with the whole discarding of the infinite loop, so I worked through the problem seperately using the nested footnotes. Then, when we hit the infinite loop I split between the two possible answers (either the infinite loop ends on true or false). As I read it, they both get the same answer:

no (3)

no (not true (5))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < 3))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < (not true))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true 3 < 2)))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true (5)))))

Split!

If 6 is false (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 2)

no (not true (7)) - meaningless, so discard

no (not true)

My Hobby: Posting "WAKE UP SHEEPLE OPEN YOUR EYES!!" on random explainxkcd talk pages. - Remember not to talk about /b/

If 6 is true (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 2 < 2)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 4)

no (3 < 5 < 1)

no (3)

no (not true)

Both lead to the answer "... experiments to observe this and we found evidence for it in our data". {{unsigned|‎Urah}}

:Yes, but at each stage you may "''toggle between interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes and interpreting them as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1).''" That is, a23 may ''either'' be read as "apply note 8 (=2mod6) to text ''a''", or as "apply note 3 to text "2", then the result to text ''a''". {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:There are differences in interpretation here. If we write "foo36", is it equal to "foo112" or "foo3112"? I assumed the former and you assumed the latter. My reasoning is that footnotes modify their arguments and not themselves. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 5 be true (because 6 is actually 13; therefore 5 is true2133; so the 2 is ignored regardless the truth of 3) and 3 is not true? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.118.249|178.26.118.249]] 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

'''Yet another alternative solution:''' Footnotes should be evaluated from top to bottom, so "no12" = "no1 + 2" = "no3". We turn to the definition of 3, which is "not true32" = "not true3 + 2" = "not true5".

Now 5 is "true263". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 122 = 1(4. ibid.) = 13, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true5", getting us into an infinite loop. However, 263 must evaluate to 1, because otherwise we're incrementing "true" by 2, which is meaningless. This means that 3 must be equal "not true". 63 = "actually a 1"33 = "actually a 1". 5 becomes true1 which just says to ignore this footnote altogether and we can confirm that 3 is indeed not true (not true5 = not true). So the answer is that the "no" is not true, and the correct statement is "we found ''some'' evidence for it in our data." Phew. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discouraging anyone from coming up with more alternate solutions, but would it be fair to say that part of the point is that there are multiple equally legit ways to run this labyrinth, and that some exit where you ignore the 'no', others exit on the other side where you don't ignore it. and then there's those who won't exit because they're busy making a map. - [[Special:Contributions/70.72.16.171|70.72.16.171]] 23:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the proof from ''This means that 3 = "true"''. Why do you assume that footnote has to be either "true" or "false? I think it could be "ignore this", "increment by three before following", "leave the whole calculation and assume we have two pieces of evidence" etc. as well. [[Special:Contributions/178.56.1.144|178.56.1.144]] 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:Given the footnotes' definitions I don't think it's possible to ever come up with "increment by three before following" ;)
:Actually the solution I gave may be not strictly formal, but it gives some intuition why it seems to be the only valid one.
:The fact that the definitions are recursive doesn't imply that the ultimate answer cannot be resolved. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing is this, "No means No.", yes?[[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 19:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a real strange logic, but "No = No" means "Yes" --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

;Footnote logic:

So... I did some footnote logic, and came up with this:

This explanation will treat footnotes as footnotes, with the order of operations from top-down, with footnotes acting on only the object they are attached to, including other footnotes.

1. no^1^2

2. no^3

3. no(not true^3^2)

4. no(not (true^5))

5. no(not (true^2^6^3))

The ^6 says the ^2 is actually a 1^2^2, but the ^3 says that the ^6 is "not true^3^2". This leads us to an infinite loop, as the "not true^3^2" in step 3 led to the addition of the additional "not true^3^2".

I assume that the loop can be reduced down to either "true" or "not true", for the purposes of following this path. I will explore both options.

if infinite loop is true:

6a. no(not true^1^2^2) (replacing 2 with 1^2^2 as per 6)

7a. no(not true^1^4)

8a. no(not true(ignore(not true^3^2))) (infinite loop again)

I guess we'll split once more.

if second loop is true:

9aa. no(not (true(ignore(not true)))) (as the second loop reduced to true, we have no more footnotes)

10aa. no(not true) (since the "ignore" this exponent was not true, we can remove it)

And we finally have something simple. No is not true, so evidence was actually found.

if second loop is false:

9ab. no(not (true(ignore(not (not true))))) (again, with the second loop reduced to "not true", we have no more footnotes)

10ab. no(not (true(ignore)))

11ab. no(not)

This is a bit more confusing, as we're ignoring the true as per step 10ab, and are just left with no^not. I'm going to take this to mean true, as in, again, evidence was found.

if first loop is false:

6b. no(not (true^2)) (the ^6 which said that the ^2 was actually a 1^2^2 was negated by the ^3 (which we declared as false for this leg), therefore both the ^3 and the ^6 can be reduced to nothing.)

No idea how to proceed here, as true is not a footnote, and can't be followed or incremented.

If we just ignore the ^2, we're left with the same as 10aa. That is, evidence was again found.

Alternatively, we can say that because ^5==false led us to a nonsensical result, then ^5 must always reduce to true, meaning that the only acceptable answer is to follow the path to 10aa.

Any way you slice it, evidence was certainly found.

[[User:Kalzekdor|Kalzekdor]] ([[User talk:Kalzekdor|talk]]) 22:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

;Read the title text
The title text says that you have to toggle between interpreting footnotes and calculating them (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). And all calculations using the plus sign for exponents are wrong. 32 is 3*3 and not 3+2.

:Interpreting footnotes:
:no12 - 1ignore this
:no2 - 2increment by 2
:no4 - 4IBID -> footnote before
:no3 - 3not true32
:yes32

:Calculation:
:32 = 9 -> 9-1 = 8 -> 8 modulo 6 = 2 -> 2 plus 1 = 3
:yes3

:Interpreting footnotes is again the same as before:
:yes3
:no32

So I am also on an infinite loop and footnotes 5 and 6 are never used.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

you are all wrong and I would presume there is no solution as title popup says '''every time''' you read it you should toggle... so I'm afraid everyone could arrive to different solution.
[[Special:Contributions/87.239.45.58|87.239.45.58]] 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Cyp

(A) I don't follow the last comment. You toggle only when you read the mouseover. For most people, only once: i.e., try it the other way.
(B) Should 1 be interpreted as a message to the reader or a comment on the footnoted phrase? If the latter, then as exponents, it is 1x1=1, or ignore the "no". If the former, then as exponents, move on to footnote 2, then 4, then 3 and stop there--"not true 3x3" cannot be evaluated. When interpreting as footnotes, then the footnote on No1 also cannot be evaluated as footnote 3 is an endless loop of 3-2-4-3-2-4... There is no opportunity to arbitrarily stop at "true" or "not true" as one commenter suggests because one never reaches the point of evaluating the self-referential 3 on the third footnote. Or it so it seems to me. [[Special:Contributions/114.171.110.105|114.171.110.105]] 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

;Where is the EDIT WAR here???
There is an update here today to the latest update on November 17. 2013; where is the actual WAR??? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 01:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:I am the anonymous editor who made the last edit before the page was protected. I suspect my frustrated summaries made the administrators believe there was a war. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it in a a different way.
no ^ 1 ^ 2 means footnote 1) to the word "no" and footnote 2) to footnote 1. Thus we got:
No (ignore this) (2)
no (ignore this) (increment by 2 before following) - so use 4) instead of 2)
no (ignore this) (4)
no (ignore this (ibid) - so use 3) instead of 3)
no (ignore this) (3)
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(2)
As 2) take us to 3) via 4) we got
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(3)
Now we can replace both (3)'s with '(not true) (3)(2)', but... they are the same. It does not matter if they are true or not, because we can A) apply 'not true' to the phrase 'not true', which results in 'true', or B) apply 'true' to the 'true' phrase, which results in the same answer, so:
no (ignore this) (not true)
Not true makes us ignoring footnote 1, and in consequence, footnoted 'no' from the very beginning stays the same.
I could alt, but It's 4p.m. and I'm heading home from office. 8-)
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.219|141.101.88.219]] 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Koovert

testing a thing here
jc{{unsigned ip|162.158.34.4}}

== It is meaningless to increment a phrase by 2 ==

Increment by 2 = add 2 = ignore this 2 = ignore this too, implying there's another ¹ somewhere earlier. Such word games wouldn't be out of character for whoever would write such a terrible mess. (Though at doesn't explain the 'before following' part.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.112|172.68.182.112]] 19:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:As I understand it, you are incrementing the one by two, leading you to three, which leads to an infinite loop of 3 and 5. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

House of Leaves reference, anyone? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.161|108.162.238.161]] 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:69: Pillow Talk

2026-05-14T22:39:23Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

How terrible of "pillow talk" it makes depends heavily on how geeky your significant other is. My wife has a T-Shirt that reads, "Talk Nerdy to Me!" -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 21:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Electrical Impedance Tomography involves attaching electrodes to things ... was he not trying to get a bit kinky? {{unsigned|147.209.216.245}}

He made #69 about pillow talk. Clever. [[User:B_for_brain|B for brain]] ([[User_talk:B_for_brain|talk]]) ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg4bo-hj-mDyOOUp_Yp0pug youtube channel] [https://bforbrain.weebly.com/ wobsite (supposed to be a blag)]) 10:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RulesOfTheInternet NICE]

also sorry for linking to tv tropes. [[609]]

Talk:69: Pillow Talk

2026-05-14T22:38:19Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Talk:609: Tab Explosion

2026-05-14T17:10:54Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

It also has a link, not only to the comic, but also to the ''explained'' comic here! Talk about a loop. Anonymous07:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

you can't access title-text on mobile devices [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.75|173.245.62.75]] 14:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

could someone please poste a link to the cracked.com column that pay tribute to this comic? {{unsigned ip|141.101.81.222}}

This could be the one that makes some reference: http://www.cracked.com/blog/clippy-finally-messes-with-the-wrong-word-doc/ (the text appears inside) {{unsigned ip|Mercastan}}
:FYI: Link is broken perhaps you should reference the internet archive link: http://web.archive.org/web/20140208183044/http://www.cracked.com:80/blog/clippy-finally-messes-with-the-wrong-word-doc [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.126|172.70.230.126]] 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

To access the title text on mobile devices, hold down the thing you need to see the title text of. Nate {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.20}}

You can also go to m.xkcd.com, and tapping on the image or the alt-text link makes the title text appear below the title (for those chrome users who can't see the entire title text by tap-holding). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.143|162.158.74.143]] 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have that website blocked by an application that blocked websites. The reason is NOT because of what is described in the comic, but it's because I got permabanned from that site back in 2017 for something I did not even know was against the rules, with no prior warnings, and the only appeal option that they gave that they did not consider "ban evasion" was an email address that never replied back to you, even years later, and I don't think they even deserve viewing traffic from people who they have treated so unfairly/punished so harshly like that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.48|172.70.135.48]] 01:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
:Waitwhat? Presuming even that you mean Cracked (not sure what you did to annoy them, it must have been... interesting) and not m.xkcd.com, I'm not sure how they could remain targetted against you, nor how it'svan application. Assuming you're not reinstalling a Child-Safe-style application of your own on every machine you try to access via, and making sure it's using PG-13 limits of some kind.
:I doubt they can reliably IP-block you. If I go to edit wikipedia and it refuses because some idiot has previously made a nuisance of themselves under my current dynamic IP, it is trivial (without VPNing or similar) to get a newish IP-of-the-moment that usually lets me do my (non-nuisance) editing.
:Even if you stick to a single device then aggressive cookie-style tracking can be 'forgotten' so that you machine isn't traitorously restating your apparent blockability.
:...never mind me, it's way too late (GMT) and I'm just far too intrigued by your statement. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.19|162.158.159.19]] 02:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

one of the minecraft splash texts is "Less Addictive Than TVTropes!"

aaah nooo A TVTropes link [[User:Thexkcdnerd|Thexkcdnerd]] ([[User talk:Thexkcdnerd|talk]]) 02:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

;i think explainxkcd is the new tvtropes

I have.. 1... 2.. SIX explainxkcd tabs are open right now {{unsigned|Willlbrwillbr|21:07, 15 February 2024}}
:...hmmm... I only have '''three''' explainxkcds (the other two ''could'' be closed, and now will be - the additional ones were there to switch back and forth to aid in article editing on this one, for jobs now completed), five different wikipedia/wiktionary ones (semi-relevent, to currently 'active' background researches) and a smattering of others that ''aren't'' tvtropes (which number at 23... all vital for reference, honest!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.110|172.71.178.110]] 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I got 20 explainxkcd tabs open, this [[917:_Hofstadter|IS (very) META]] [[User:Erlandyt|Erlandyt]] ([[User talk:Erlandyt|talk]]) 16:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1408: March of the Penguins

2026-05-14T15:56:49Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

Isn't it Danish not Megan? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.195|141.101.99.195]] 05:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
: No, Danish has longer hair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.47|108.162.245.47]] 05:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point on the point for "Is it Danish, or Megan?", but Danish would have probably helped Black Hat kill the penguins. Another thing to add is Danish won't react like that, but Megan would be more likely.
-Swaphero

: Also, if it were Danish, she would have a good come back for black hat. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.108|108.162.216.108]] 13:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)BK

Would Movie Ages (http://www.xkcd.com/891) be just as pertinent, if not more so, than Timeghost? Should we include a reference to it in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.170|173.245.54.170]] 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)DBrak
: Good idea. I think we should, so I've included that reference now. --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is totally off-topic, but I can't help myself. I remember reading somewhere that the film was made by a French team (I think) and they realized they had a hit on their hands. But when they were negotating with a distributor for the USA market that it was demanded that all reference to the penguins' amazing behavior being due to their evolutionary development had to be removed. "Evolution" was a dirty word for the USA market. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 22:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:I don't think RenniePet's comment is off-topic; the same audience that they deleted "Evolution" for used it as an example for family values and ID - is the "Oh God" dialog an allusion to whether Black Hat been playing God? --[[User:FractalgeekUK|FractalgeekUK]] ([[User talk:FractalgeekUK|talk]]) 00:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::I found a NY Times article on the evolution point: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/science/13peng.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.99|173.245.52.99]] 01:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A thought: possibly at least partially inspired by much-repeated note about current events as of the time of writing -- with Lauren Bacall's death, all the people mentioned in Madonna's Vogue are dead. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.215|173.245.52.215]] 03:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally, we get some Black Hat antics! Have you noticed that Randall has lately done less Black Hat comics? Or is just me?
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.90|173.245.48.90]] 20:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Nobody seems to ask WHY Black Hat apparently killed the penguins or even HOW (?!) {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.251}}
:There is nothing in the comic, or in any other comic that would indicate why or how he would have done it, or even if it was just a mistake. So what should we include? Anything would be speculation. That Black Hat might do it just to make Megan sad is enough reason for me. Also he might just come to her to apologize just t make her think he is joking with the feeling old. Last point could be that he might not even have killed them, but when Megan spoiled his joke by realizing that he was trying to make her feel old, he quickly invented the killing story to upset her anyway. The title text kind of reinforces this, since he then anyway get to tell her she should feel old. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC) (Just added this idea to the explanation...)

Does Black Hat's statement necessarily imply that ALL the penguins were alive until recently? The article seems to state so on two or three instances and even goes to rebuke that position, but it is more probable that Black Hat was talking about all penguins that survived until "last night".
:Black Hat first refers to "all the birds," then says that "they" were alive until last night, so it's at least reasonable to read it as meaning they were all alive. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 18:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk:935: Missed Connections

2026-05-14T15:04:36Z

2605:59C8:22E3:3E14:7DFA:19A4:56DB:A3EB:

A "Juggalo" is a fan of the band Insane Clown Posse, about as diametrically removed from a democratic politician as you could think of. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 17:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:More specifically, she has a reputation for being stern and somewhat humorless making her an even better contrast to a Juggalo [[User:KingDragonlord|KingDragonlord]] ([[User talk:KingDragonlord|talk]]) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm new so I don't want to overstep bounds and just edit the page but I think it would be clearer to just say the TARDIS is a time travel device. Anyone not familiar with the tv series is not going to care what TARDIS is an acronym for. [[User:KingDragonlord|KingDragonlord]] ([[User talk:KingDragonlord|talk]]) 17:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

:I think having the expansion of TARDIS is fine, but you are correct there should be a mention of what a TARDIS is, and a link to the wikipedia article for the TARDIS. You are fully free, and welcomed to edit any explanation that you think is lacking information. The worst that could happen is someone reverts your edit and leaves a note on your talk page about why. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 19:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

According to Craigslist itself, Missed Connections has ''never'' worked. They're still waiting for a testimony for its first success.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Nancy Pelosi/Juggalo entry was a specific reference to an event at the White House that Republican commentators branded as a wild party even though it was not. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.86}}

I thought that the second entry was a reference to Plato's cave... Anyone else think that? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.185|141.101.98.185]] 18:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:Apparently not! -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 02:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the Babe Ruth joke is likely a reference tothe Abbott and Costello Who's on First sketch, where The Doctor =Doctor Who = The Who that is on first = Babe Ruth. I've added it to the description but think it could be done better. I also don't know enough about baseball - would Babe Ruth ever be on first? (I know that The Doctor hasn't been called "Doctor Who" person for a long time, but people do still refer to him as Doctor Who) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.170|172.69.43.170]] 21:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Somebody needs to make a Doctor Who category. [[User:Xkdvd|Xkdvd]] ([[User talk:Xkdvd|talk]]) 01:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:The first step, ideally, is to list all comics that reference Doctor Who (the series) and/or The Doctor (the character)... I did a quick search, and didn't find more than a couple of fleeting references (adlnd almost all of that in the comic commentaries), but I didn't flex my Search-Fu muscles more than the bare minimum amount, and you might already know what I've missed through lack of further effort. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.3|82.132.239.3]] 01:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

hey why is this in the "furries" catagory?