explain xkcd:Explanation Improvement Project

explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Redirected from explain xkcd:Explanation Completion Project)
Latest comment: Yesterday at 17:53 by FaviFake in topic Nominations
Jump to navigation Jump to search

After remaining inactive more than a decade, the Explanation Completion Project is back with a new goal and a new name! Explaining every comic was just the start; the key to an active wiki is the maintenance and constant improvements for the existing explanations.

While most new comics receive high-quality explanations thanks to our growing user base and high standards, our goal is to have a complete repository of explanations for every comic. However, some old and neglected explanations do not attract enough attention and tend to remain stagnant. This project aims to solve that.

This week's explanation for improvement is:

172: Skateboarding is Not a Crime

Get involved with the project: nominate an explanation or vote on current nominations!

There are a total of 3328 explanations on this wiki. Every Monday, upon completion of This Week's Explanation for Improvement (TWEFI), a new page will be featured in the Main Page and in our global site banner with the goal of continually keeping our older explanations as detailed and fresh as possible. Remember; every little bit counts. Even if all you can do is add a sentence or fix a typo, that is still another step taken towards finishing the article.

This project differs from our backlog of incomplete articles, which mostly includes the most recent comics and some evergreen explanations that are never truly "finished". For those, browse Category:Incomplete explanations or jump to a random incomplete explanation.

Criteria [edit]

The Explanation Improvement Project is primarily focused on improving existing explanations while also helping create new editors. Ideal candidates for This Week's Explanation for Improvement are:

1. In need of significant improvement, with an extensive scope for expansion. Short explanations (view list of shortest explanations) are often the most ideal for improvement, but longer explanations also qualify if they fail to explain the joke and are written poorly. Good concise explanations about quick and straightforward jokes should remain short, so evaluate explanations on overall quality rather than length.

2. Accessible to a broad audience or otherwise ideal for new editors. The week-long collaborative format of this project (edit-a-thon) works best for comics about relatable topics. Explanations about niche or highly technical jokes, as well as those detailing the inner workings of the comic, usually belong in the general incomplete explanations backlog instead.

3. Old or out of date. While not strictly required, an explanation is usually a good candidate if it predates the creation of this wiki, or needs to be updated to reflect newly available information, such as predictions in the comic coming true. Starting from the release of comic 1079 in 2012, new explanations were featured on the Main Page for several days and are generally higher-quality as a result. Particularly, recent comics from the last few years are almost never nominated.

Nomination process[edit]

Anyone is encouraged to nominate one or more explanations! If do not have any specific comic in mind, you can start by browsing the list of shortest explanations, but keep in mind that not all concise explanations are incomplete. To nominate an explanation for consideration by the Explanation Improvement Project, follow these simple steps:

  1. Check whether the explanation(s) you want to nominate meet the three criteria above.
  2. Click here to add your nomination at the top of the list using this format:
    {{Nominate|1234: Title of Comic}} I'm nominating this explanation because ... (say briefly how it can be improved and which criteria it meets). ~~~~
    
  3. Save the page.

Done. Your nomination will be discussed by the members of the project in the following days!

Any user is welcome to vote on the suitability of existing nominations as well! To help us select the best Explanations for Improvement, use the "Reply" button to comment on existing nominations. Based on community consensus, successful nominations are moved into the section § Successful nominations (pending) and will be featured week-by-week. Unsuccessful nominations will instead be moved into § Unsuccessful nominations. In either case, the top of the § Discussion section for the comic is marked with a banner that includes the nominator's username!

Nominations[edit]

Current TWEFI[edit]

This is the Explanation for Improvement for the current week.

Short short. Intriguing, though slightly niche, and dated. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 05:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. We could explain more the controversy around skateboarding, and the stickers and similar occurrences Black Hat's Hat (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Featured as This Week's Explanation for Improvement. FaviFake (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


Successful nominations (pending)[edit]

Successful nominations from § Current nominations are moved here waiting to featured.

Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, this could be a good candidate, even if it's relatively newer and not too deep. The quality of the explanation is not good. FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strong agree, especially considering AI summaries and promotional content. 12 years is still a long time. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 04:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This looks like a great candidate! Despite being slightly longer than the others, it doesn't really explain the core joke of the comic. FaviFake (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agree with FF. The explanation doesn't go into why the upvoted sarcastic comments would cause Cueball's emotion. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 22:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


The explanation is very much a transcript. A true explanation of the joke would be nice. It meets all the criteria I believe. Black Hat's Hat (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strong agree. We don't mention BH's classhole tendencies, which seems perfect for the idea of hiding the true nature of reality from someone. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 17:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


Again, a very short explanation. We could go deeper into why Cueball doesn't want the other people to have fun on Rock Band. Capycapybara (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this one could use some love. Good find! Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


The explanation doesn't really seem to fully explain the comic. It just seems to give an overview. Capycapybara (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agree; I feel like we could also assess the occurrences in the dream. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 19:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


I'm not super sure about this one, but it does just seem to have a transcript-like explanation like the ones listed above. Capycapybara (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This one is kinda hard, but I do agree it could be improved. Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This one is pretty good. We can explain the title text better and how iTunes worked back in the day or why one would listed to the free sample.
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


Current nominations[edit]

Welcome! Follow the instructions above to add your nominations to the top of this section.

This explanation could probably use a fresh set of edits. It doesn't fully explain the joke, and the explanation overall is too short in comparison to the comic's content. It doesn't talk about the title text or how it furthers the joke, and it is also quite an early comic. The discussion also cited a few things that the comic could be missing that should be taken into account if this comic is nominated. The Black Hat Guy (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Amazing find! There's so much missing here. FaviFake (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


I think the explanation is very disorganised and misses a few things. It fails to completely explain the joke, and instead jumps into many different irrelevant tangents. In comparison, 177: Alice and Bob is much more polished. FaviFake (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


I'm nominating this explanation because ... the strip was published in 2011 with predictions for the following century. In the last fifteen years, we've seen things occur that were not predicted until the 2040s. The table should be cleaned up, with the "outcome" fields standardized and color-coded depending on what has come to pass. We should also look for predictions that are unknowable, imprecise, or unquantifiable ("Severe heat waves become commonplace", "India becomes superpower", "US power fades"). 158.173.67.189 01:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Me again. Come to think of it, anything a timeline of events over the next century should probably be placed listed for frequent reviews. Is there a "frequent review" project? 158.173.67.79 19:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not particularly, unless there's some archaic attempt to do so that I've forgotten about/missed.
There could be maybe some template something like {{reviewBy|date=2027/09/05}} or even {{reviewBy|year=2027}} (the latter being a simpler shortcut to date=2027/01/01) that could generate a membership of a [[Category:Pages for periodic review]] only once a particularly mentioned (or milestoned) date has passed.
Part of the review process, by the next person to find it being categorised to that effect, would be to reset the date/milestone to the next such review-time. Maybe another parameter (or the unused no-name trailing parameter(s)) could contain basic information like |may need checking every month, |update to next Presidential election or |the next hot-dog eating contest after the upcoming gubernatorial election is on somedate. In this case, one could line up the years-yet-to-come and as each 'current target' is reached an specifically checked then the next one can be anually shifted out of the line-up to replace the current one now (apart from any off-schedule updates) fulfilled.
But one can overthink this idea. Perhaps start with just a {{reviewBy|''some free text''}} that renders such pages searchable-for, before getting too complicated about it! 81.179.200.82 20:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That absolutely makes sense. I suppose it should be paired with a "CurrentyTopical=YN" or "TopicalUntil" tag, so that a strip mentioning events in 2032, for example, is topical for the entire year of 2032, or is topical until 2032-12-31T23:59:59. That would stop people from constantly checking in and posting that California has not fallen into the ocean year, but might before the end of the year. IIRC, most of the Future Timeline strips only mention years, not dates. 158.173.67.213 01:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


The current explanation just seems to explain the background behind the comic but not the comic itself. Capycapybara (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Very short explanation that's pretty much just a transcript. Capycapybara (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yup. Just a transcript, nowhere near today's standards. FaviFake (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


15 comics nominated. All of the comics below are somewhat niche, but broad enough to be good for new users, and in need of some revamping and improvement. Most are before 2013. To be fair, I came upon with this list before the criteria was put down. Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a pretty decent one, with a pretty good room for improvement in my opinion. But maybe the topic is a bit too technical? FaviFake (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not fully convinced by this one. It is short, but the joke is pretty simple. But we could add an explanation of what tornado chasers usually do! FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Definitely needs more explanation, but I feel like the topic may be a bit niche. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 22:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is perfect! A very notable comics about a common joke that has a terrible explanation! Great find! FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we could give the reader more up-to-date stats, since the comic was published more than a decade ago? FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is pretty good, the explanation definitely needs some polishing and the joke isn't too obvious. FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not so sure of this one myself. I feel like we should explain stuff like powerscaling and similar activites (which this comic seems based off of) and some updates stats, but it is not too much in need of help otherwise Black Hat's Hat (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I feel like the explanation covers the comic, but it doesn't explain; I'm feeling the lack of the obligatory TVTropes link and the discussion around laser powers. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 22:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Archived nominations[edit]

This is an archive of all explanations nominated since August 2026. For those featured on the previous iteration of this project, browse the page history instead.

Past successful nominations[edit]

Successful nominations are moved to /Successful nominations after being featured for seven days. View list of comics.

August 2026[edit]

Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is amazing! It has a relatively deep but simple joke, a weak explanation, and a reference to an old internet custom! FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Featured as This Week's Explanation for Improvement. FaviFake (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Archived. FaviFake (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


September 2026[edit]

Very short, and only does a surface graze of the topic. Parallels to AI image editing, anyone? 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 06:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a great one! I was about to say the same thing, it can be updated by better explaining the reference and to add modern parallels. FaviFake (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Featured as This Week's Explanation for Improvement. FaviFake (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Archived but marked as still incomplete. Unfortunately it still needs some serious copy-editing. FaviFake (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


This explanation is just seven sentences and three small paragraphs. It also doesn't explain the title text or first panel well enough. This has to be the most incomplete explanation that isn't marked as incomplete. YZ100 (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Nomination successful. Jeez. You're right; if this comic were released today, its explanation would be at least several pages long! FaviFake (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Featured as This Week's Explanation for Improvement. FaviFake (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Archived but marked as still incomplete. Unfortunately one late suggestion from the talk page wasn't addressed. FaviFake (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


Short, relevant to the public, and I'm sure we could go way deeper into washing clothes and adjacent habits. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 21:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wow, this simply doesn't even have an explanation at all. It's basically just a transcript in the wrong section. Great find! FaviFake (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good pick here! Needs some help for sure Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination successful. FaviFake (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah 47.225.213.200 17:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Featured as This Week's Explanation for Improvement. FaviFake (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


October 2026[edit]

Unsuccessful nominations[edit]

Unsuccessful nominations are moved to /Unsuccessful nominations and should not be re-nominated. View list of comics.

August 2026[edit]

April Fool's Comics are always a big task to handle and require a lot of work to fully explain (some of these are from a decade ago and aren't completely explained yet). tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


The Spells section has a lot of busy work that doesn't seem too hard to explain. A week of concentrated collaborative effort should do the trick. tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


THE BANE OF MY WIKI EDITING EXPERIENCE. I've always been frustrated by how sparse this article is and how many things were missing when I found it. I've uploaded quite a bit, but some are still missing and require some digging to find/explain (because I really suck at drawing connections and recognizing where the Loot come from...) tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Sort out the explanation structuring, explain further the delay of the comic, upload all pictures from [1], add a transcript for each image in the image gallery, explain the table of all notifications. tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


I don't know how unix or linux or code or bash or anything like that at all. Please...I need help explaining this comic :C tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for commenting! Unfortunately I think all of the five April Fools' explanations that you nominated don't meet the criteria #2 and #3, specifically the part about being "ideal for new editors" and interesting to explain. I think this sentences particularly applies: "The one-week edit-a-thon format of the project is well-suited for comics that cover everyday, normal topics. On the other hand, comics about obscure and deeply technical topics usually belong in the Incomplete explanations backlog instead." Essentially, this project is very focused on one specific goal precisely to avoid becoming a bloated mess like the Incomplete explanations backlog.
For example, the tasks you cited, such as explaining why a comic was released late or downloading and uploading images from the xkcd.com website, are not really interesting, which is why they've sat in the backlog for a decade. Most editors come here because they want to explain Randall's clever jokes. The Incomplete explanations backlog isn't monitored very often, but it is linked from every new explanation and the main page. If even all that "foot traffic" didn't result in meaningful improvements over so many years, I think it's unlikely that featuring those explanation from the sitenotice (which will mostly attract new and inexperienced editors) will do more harm than good. In the best case, there will be no significant improvements except from a few power users like us. In the worst case, it damages the reputation of this project as a means to update neglected explanations.
The Incomplete explanations backlog was a result of the failed Explanation Completion Project, aka Explanation of the Day. In my opinion, the project's goal was too broad and this led to it becoming less and less relevant over time, as the explanations became more and more similar to technical manuals of how a comic works. The last few explanations featured in the sitenotice were precisely this kind of pages and it didn't work. FaviFake (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see how this works now. Shame on me for not reading through everything thoroughly...thanks for the feedback tori :3talk to me! 00:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No worries! Putting my goal into words helped me understand them better as well. I've marked the explanations you mentioned as incomplete per this nominations and moved your suggestions there. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment above FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


September 2026[edit]

Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This explanation would be a perfect candidate if it weren't about a complex topic, imo. I think it doesn't satisfy criterion #2 and it should probably be marked as {{incomplete}}. FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete as the explanation remains too technical and should use simpler terms. FaviFake (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


It doesn't explain why the lines don't line up.. Velocifyer (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what you mean. This explanation seems pretty thorough. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 00:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I get what they're trying to say. They don't understand why there's a 25-year gap between the two lines. I guess that gap usually represents the time it takes for something to cause effects (e.g., if people start smoking today, they will start dying only 30 years from now). The explanation is not written in simple terms and I can see why one could get confused: it glazes over the main point and instead uses some weird sentences like the scientific research community, which often prides itself on its intellectual aptitude, is gently mocked for being nonetheless prone to such poor reasoning all too often.
I'm not sure if this specifically qualifies for This Week's Explanation for Improvement based on the #criteria, but at the same time I think it could be improved and streamlined a bit. But what do you think? FaviFake (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it could use some copyediting. Perhaps mark as incomplete, with bullet points Explain why there is a gap between the two lines and Clean up the article so its tone is more accessible? 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 01:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good idea! FaviFake (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete as it fails criterion #1 but is still poorly written. FaviFake (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply