Talk:2123: Meta Collecting

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

RIP List of collectables and grammar. It’s collectable. Not collectible, collectable. Netherin5 (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You may disagree, but collectable is also correct. 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we’re agreeing here? I also use collectable, and said so in my comment. At least it should be used in this case, because it’s what Wikipedia uses on said page. Netherin5 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
My understanding was that the words had different meanings. Something is collectible if it would have a place in a collection; a Harley is collectible because it would have a place in Cueball's collection of items. Something is collectable if it can be collected; a court judgement may be collectable if the person ordered to pay has enough money to make the payment. D5xtgr (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Suspiciously enough, that’s the exact example I got when I googled it, but thank you for the collection. I only say this because of the article in question discussed. Netherin5 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I was having a hard time wording my original example - it's rather easier to show why a debt or court judgement wouldn't be collectable than to explain why one would be. D5xtgr (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Googling "collectible define" or "collectable define", we get that both seem to be correct. says collectable is typically the British spelling of the word.

First time posting here, so my format might be terrible. But looking at the list of collectables; Maytag is listed, and the reference is for antique scales, so definitely not dryers. 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Antique washer models to scale? Fixed it. On a serious note, it’s just one source, there are probably people who would collect washers, or, the more likely option, they just saw Maytag and thought “washers” EDIT: As a formatting nerd, it’s good. Netherin5 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia intern: "Mr. Sanger? Randall made a comic about us again." Larry Sanger: "Godammit, what page do we have to lock this time?" GreatWyrmGold (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

*Jimbo (Sanger left around 2003) 16:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I already suggested this before that I think we can have a new collected page of xkcd Wikipedia edit wars. I doubt the trivia in 2099 is the full list, or is it? Are there not that many cases as I think to be worth it? 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has the list now, so I'm satisfied. 05:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As of right now, Randall has got his wish: the page is protected. Unfortunately, it's protected with "yachts" on it and, of course, it can't be reverted because of the protection. Jeremyp (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

On the plus side, old yachts that are no longer seaworthy but still collectable are quite common on craigslist for under $10,000. Even cheaper yet, just ask any marina owner for abandoned sunken yachts you can have just for getting them out of the waterway.Seebert (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It's gone now. The edit history is quite entertaining though. "Added boating category" Linker (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks like one of the editors got a bit overzealous and deleted Element Collecting because they thought it was an xkcd reference. CJB42 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That sucks. That is such a real hobby though. There is this guy who made a wooden periodic actual table and put elements on it in each of their places. He takes beautiful photos of them.

Interesting choice of username, xkcd2123. -- (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

It is disappointing that xkcd readers think it's funny to vandalize the wikipedia article because of this comic. I highly doubt that Randall himself did so, and I don't think he intended for anyone else to actually vandalize it either. Furthermore, giving these viewers any satisfaction by actually including this info in the comic discussion seems somehow inappropriate. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that Randall probably didn't vandalize it himself I don't think he is naive enough to think no one would after he posted the comic. Also, personally I don't see a big problem with a little harmless editing of a single Wikipedia article. If this was ongoing or involved more consequential edits I'd agree with you. 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the second item on the top shelf may be a bottle of perfume.I prefer qwerty (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)