explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination - Revision history

Aprilfoolsupdate!: /* confusing matricies transcript */ new section

2026-03-23T11:10:43Z

‎confusing matricies transcript: new section

42.book.addict at 17:41, 24 February 2026

2026-02-24T17:41:47Z

Qwertyuiopfromdefly: /* 226 has an undetermined character */ new section

2026-02-04T04:55:12Z

‎226 has an undetermined character: new section

82.132.244.8: /* Individual headings in Talk pages */

2026-01-19T15:28:49Z

‎Individual headings in Talk pages

Dtgriscom: /* Individual headings in Talk pages */

2026-01-19T15:10:16Z

‎Individual headings in Talk pages

82.132.244.8: /* Individual headings in Talk pages */

2026-01-19T14:45:59Z

‎Individual headings in Talk pages

82.132.244.8: /* Individual headings in Talk pages */ Of course, I reformatted it to stop the numeric bullet sequence (1, 2, 3) from happening. Now just consistent symbol-bullet.

2026-01-19T14:33:11Z

‎Individual headings in Talk pages: Of course, I reformatted it to stop the numeric bullet sequence (1, 2, 3) from happening. Now just consistent symbol-bullet.

82.132.244.8: /* Individual headings in Talk pages */

2026-01-19T14:28:15Z

‎Individual headings in Talk pages

Dtgriscom: /* Individual headings in Talk pages */

2026-01-19T13:16:26Z

‎Individual headings in Talk pages

Elizium23: /* Individual headings in Talk pages */

2026-01-19T06:17:55Z

‎Individual headings in Talk pages

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:10, 23 March 2026
Line 607:		Line 607:

	It's either [[Blondie]] or [[Miss Lenhart]], and I don't know which. [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly\|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly\|talk]]) 04:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)		It's either [[Blondie]] or [[Miss Lenhart]], and I don't know which. [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly\|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly\|talk]]) 04:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	== confusing matricies transcript ==
		+
		+	some of the comics in category confusing matrcies have tables as the transcript, which is i think not good accoridng to faq, sorry i cant help because i am on a kindle(the ebook(yes)) [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!\| <sup>April</sup><sub>fools</sub><sup><sub>update</sub></sup>!]]([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!\|talk]]) 11:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 357: / Line 357: @@
 Has the template of the "incomplete explanation of the day" box changed?
-I'm sure the title of the incomplete page used to be a link, but now it appears in bold, and not a link... {{unsigned|Pudder}}
+I'm sure the title of the incomplete page used to be a link, but now it appears in bold, and not a link... {{unsigned|Pudder|12:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)}}
 :It'll look like that if you're on the page that it links to, or if mediawiki messes up. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 16:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 373: / Line 373: @@
 == Most character pages are missing infoboxes ==
-Please add them if possible. There are two types of character infoboxes currently, "character infobox" for when the category page is "Comics featuring '''''Name'''''"; while "character infobox 2" is for when the character page serves as its own category page. {{unsigned|17jiangz1}}
+Please add them if possible. There are two types of character infoboxes currently, "character infobox" for when the category page is "Comics featuring '''''Name'''''"; while "character infobox 2" is for when the character page serves as its own category page. {{unsigned|17jiangz1|15:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)}}
 == Lander ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 4 February 2026
Line 603:		Line 603:
	::My take is a) talk page formatting isn't a big deal, and b) reasonable comments by other users on talk pages (and I think those headers were such) shouldn't be edited or removed without a clear edit comment as to why. Otherwise you confuse and bemuse other editors. (And, we have bigger fish to fry.) -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 15:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		::My take is a) talk page formatting isn't a big deal, and b) reasonable comments by other users on talk pages (and I think those headers were such) shouldn't be edited or removed without a clear edit comment as to why. Otherwise you confuse and bemuse other editors. (And, we have bigger fish to fry.) -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 15:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
	:::I have absolutely no objection to being bemused... ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 15:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		:::I have absolutely no objection to being bemused... ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 15:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	== 226 has an undetermined character ==
		+
		+	It's either [[Blondie]] or [[Miss Lenhart]], and I don't know which. [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly\|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly\|talk]]) 04:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:28, 19 January 2026
Line 602:		Line 602:
	:A discussion of style is useful, of course. Whether the long standing editors will change (or the constant influx of newbies get it any more 'right' first time!) is another question. :p [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		:A discussion of style is useful, of course. Whether the long standing editors will change (or the constant influx of newbies get it any more 'right' first time!) is another question. :p [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
	::My take is a) talk page formatting isn't a big deal, and b) reasonable comments by other users on talk pages (and I think those headers were such) shouldn't be edited or removed without a clear edit comment as to why. Otherwise you confuse and bemuse other editors. (And, we have bigger fish to fry.) -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 15:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		::My take is a) talk page formatting isn't a big deal, and b) reasonable comments by other users on talk pages (and I think those headers were such) shouldn't be edited or removed without a clear edit comment as to why. Otherwise you confuse and bemuse other editors. (And, we have bigger fish to fry.) -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 15:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
		+	:::I have absolutely no objection to being bemused... ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 15:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:10, 19 January 2026
Line 601:		Line 601:
	:But this is a community of new-bugs and old-farts and plenty in-between (I'm certainly far more 'fart' than 'bug'), and I'm hoping to give you a little insight into what I know of this site's 'unwritten rules' on this subject. (Whatever the written ones might say! ;) )		:But this is a community of new-bugs and old-farts and plenty in-between (I'm certainly far more 'fart' than 'bug'), and I'm hoping to give you a little insight into what I know of this site's 'unwritten rules' on this subject. (Whatever the written ones might say! ;) )
	:A discussion of style is useful, of course. Whether the long standing editors will change (or the constant influx of newbies get it any more 'right' first time!) is another question. :p [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		:A discussion of style is useful, of course. Whether the long standing editors will change (or the constant influx of newbies get it any more 'right' first time!) is another question. :p [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
		+	::My take is a) talk page formatting isn't a big deal, and b) reasonable comments by other users on talk pages (and I think those headers were such) shouldn't be edited or removed without a clear edit comment as to why. Otherwise you confuse and bemuse other editors. (And, we have bigger fish to fry.) -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 15:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 563: / Line 563: @@
 ::You'll also get 'established names' doing this, either knowing that it's more consistent this way or perhaps having been brow-beaten into this way of thinking by prior editors. (Either way, though, apparently thinking it's better this way.)
 ::Now, though, I m going to go and check the exact examples that happened. You never know, I might have a completely different idea of whether or not it's vandalism (or just 'sloppy re-editing'), and have to interfere myself... ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8|82.132.244.8]] 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
 :It's not universal (as I'm sure you'll notice), but ==title== headers (and especially =title= ones) have been historically discouraged for several reasons. One of which might have been the tendency to appear on the Explanation Page (or Main Page) TOC, due to being a transcluded part of them.

@@ Line 574: / Line 574: @@
 :Broad examples of that latter are:
-#Useless header
+*Useless header
 ::'''Hiya!'''
 ::I just want to say "First!" --signed
@@ Line 580: / Line 580: @@
 ::I just want to say "First!" --signed
 :...While not begrudging the 'first-tag', the header is even more throwaway
-#Cut-down header
+*Cut-down header
 ::'''The thing about dinosaurs - A few thoughts'''
 ::While the velociraptor will [...]
@@ Line 586: / Line 586: @@
 ::The thing about dinosaurs is that, while the velociraptor will [...]
 :...a bit of artistic applied to keep the 'main' part of the header.
-#Full context header
+*Full context header
 ::'''The table should be as per <comic-link>'''
 ::The reason being, that both are trying to display [...]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 19 January 2026
Line 559:		Line 559:

	:That IP has done a lot of what seems like good edits, starting three months ago, so assuming it's one person it doesn't seem like they're a vandal. -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 13:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		:That IP has done a lot of what seems like good edits, starting three months ago, so assuming it's one person it doesn't seem like they're a vandal. -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 13:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
		+	::Addendum (to my following reply direct to Elizium, but this in response to Dtgriscom with whom I found myself Edit Conflicting):
		+	::If it was an IP (not me, I'm sure, but hard to prove that - and there's non-zero possibility of us even both sitting in the same small range of IPs), it's possible they've also been around for years and so honestly following the established 'unwritten rules' as much as any directive.
		+	::You'll also get 'established names' doing this, either knowing that it's more consistent this way or perhaps having been brow-beaten into this way of thinking by prior editors. (Either way, though, apparently thinking it's better this way.)
		+	::Now, though, I m going to go and check the exact examples that happened. You never know, I might have a completely different idea of whether or not it's vandalism (or just 'sloppy re-editing'), and have to interfere myself... ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	:It's not universal (as I'm sure you'll notice), but ==title== headers (and especially =title= ones) have been historically discouraged for several reasons. One of which might have been the tendency to appear on the Explanation Page (or Main Page) TOC, due to being a transcluded part of them.
		+	:(That's why Explanations 'base' themselves with == level headers, to not confuse with the primary = level ones on the front page, and === level may have therefore been prefered in Discussion segments at one time or a other. Though there may currently be a NOTOC-type directive applied to stop that kind of 'header inheritance' anyway. I know there was some recent editing of the templates/whatever to do additional noinclude stuff at the Explanation/Discussion boundary, too, but I forget the full details without checking.)
		+
		+	:Another is that ''unless'' the next person to append a new 'zero indent' topic also supplies an appropriately new header, they're either adding a 'continuation' to a sub-subject (that they may now not be talking about) or have to find the last comment before ''any'' header and add their throwaway no-header item in with the "not yet headered" initial run.
		+	:(Far simpler to just contextually have zero discussion headers and treat it as a chronological flat set of unrelated new comments. By root comment, that is; skipping later indented 'replies' apended after specific old comments. Not elegant, but readable.)
		+
		+	:The ''most'' acceptable form of Discussion header, over the years, is to use a ";"-prefixed line (technically misusing the ";dictionary:definition" markup syntax). It gives what is basically a visual header-like prominance ''without'' any of the unwanted semantic functionality.
		+	:Some editors who edit away "==headers==" will perhaps convert them to ";headers". Other editors may make the Header+FollowingText into a 'cold open' of plain text, with only so much of the original Header (zero, some, all) being left as non-headed intro as seems necessary.
		+
		+	:Broad examples of that latter are:
		+	#Useless header
		+	::'''Hiya!'''
		+	::I just want to say "First!" --signed
		+	:...becomes...
		+	::I just want to say "First!" --signed
		+	:...While not begrudging the 'first-tag', the header is even more throwaway
		+	#Cut-down header
		+	::'''The thing about dinosaurs - A few thoughts'''
		+	::While the velociraptor will [...]
		+	:...perhaps becomes...
		+	::The thing about dinosaurs is that, while the velociraptor will [...]
		+	:...a bit of artistic applied to keep the 'main' part of the header.
		+	#Full context header
		+	::'''The table should be as per <comic-link>'''
		+	::The reason being, that both are trying to display [...]
		+	:...becomes...
		+	::The table should be as per <comic-link>. The reason being, that both are trying to display [...]
		+	:...it's basically the first sentence of the contribution, and what comes after needs it to make any sense.
		+
		+	:Not that there's a particular hard and fast rule to this (see the FAQ page for any 'expected standards' that are codified, or links onwards). The more general practice is that you let everyone say the ''words'' how they like, in Discssion sections (i.e. Talk:Comic pages), but others may well make the formatting more consistent with community expectations. If the community starts to expect headers (as they might already for long/complicated comics, or meta-aside 'post comic-comment commentaries', just not for most cases) or feel the need to otherwise (re)arrange things, someone might do it differently. (But it'd be undesirable to run through every prior Discussion section and try to reconstruct the headers that aren't/weren't there.)
		+
		+	:From an inertial POV, yes "unique headings" might be accepted, but I don't recall any recent example where their loss/conversion has been more detrimental than the restoration of the standing headerless practice has made more consistent, sitewise. (YMMV!)
		+	:I also can't remember doing any of these 'prunings' myself, in very recent history (do recall some prunings happening... probably to your ones), but I've done my fair share and I know that I don't just throw them away without thinking. I'd always try to uphold the original author's (non-formatting) intent. And if I saw a less useful 'header decapitation' I might either improve how it's been done ''or'' revert it (perhaps semicoloning it, along the way) because it 'felt' right to have a header to me.
		+
		+	:But this is a community of new-bugs and old-farts and plenty in-between (I'm certainly far more 'fart' than 'bug'), and I'm hoping to give you a little insight into what I know of this site's 'unwritten rules' on this subject. (Whatever the written ones might say! ;) )
		+	:A discussion of style is useful, of course. Whether the long standing editors will change (or the constant influx of newbies get it any more 'right' first time!) is another question. :p [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.8\|82.132.244.8]] 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 19 January 2026
Line 556:		Line 556:
	Greetings,		Greetings,
	I have added a few Talk page comments, with unique headings, and I've noticed recently that some editors are going through those talk pages and deleting all headings, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3192:_Planetary_Alignment&diff=next&oldid=403346 example 1]; [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3191:_Superstition&diff=403498&oldid=403237 example 2], leaving the result quite unreadable and unsorted. Is there a "style guide" or documented consensus that headings are not permitted on Talk pages? Is this a standard across this entire Wiki that I should be aware of? Are there any other "style guides" or "manual of style" beyond the "Editing FAQ" that would inform these decisions? Thank you. [[User:Elizium23\|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23\|talk]]) 06:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		I have added a few Talk page comments, with unique headings, and I've noticed recently that some editors are going through those talk pages and deleting all headings, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3192:_Planetary_Alignment&diff=next&oldid=403346 example 1]; [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3191:_Superstition&diff=403498&oldid=403237 example 2], leaving the result quite unreadable and unsorted. Is there a "style guide" or documented consensus that headings are not permitted on Talk pages? Is this a standard across this entire Wiki that I should be aware of? Are there any other "style guides" or "manual of style" beyond the "Editing FAQ" that would inform these decisions? Thank you. [[User:Elizium23\|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23\|talk]]) 06:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
		+	:Nope. The same IP did both of those edits; I don't know why. I think headers are useful, and if someone adds one before their comment then it shouldn't be removed by someone else.
		+
		+	:That IP has done a lot of what seems like good edits, starting three months ago, so assuming it's one person it doesn't seem like they're a vandal. -- [[User:Dtgriscom\|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom\|talk]]) 13:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 19 January 2026
Line 555:		Line 555:

	Greetings,		Greetings,
−	I have added a few Talk page comments, with unique headings, and I've noticed recently that some editors are going through those talk pages and deleting all headings, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3192:_Planetary_Alignment&diff=next&oldid=403346 example 1] [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3191:_Superstition&diff=403498&oldid=403237 example 2], leaving the result quite unreadable and unsorted. Is there a "style guide" or documented consensus that headings are not permitted on Talk pages? Is this a standard across this entire Wiki that I should be aware of? Are there any other "style guides" or "manual of style" beyond the "Editing FAQ" that would inform these decisions? Thank you. [[User:Elizium23\|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23\|talk]]) 06:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)	+	I have added a few Talk page comments, with unique headings, and I've noticed recently that some editors are going through those talk pages and deleting all headings, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3192:_Planetary_Alignment&diff=next&oldid=403346 example 1]; [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3191:_Superstition&diff=403498&oldid=403237 example 2], leaving the result quite unreadable and unsorted. Is there a "style guide" or documented consensus that headings are not permitted on Talk pages? Is this a standard across this entire Wiki that I should be aware of? Are there any other "style guides" or "manual of style" beyond the "Editing FAQ" that would inform these decisions? Thank you. [[User:Elizium23\|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23\|talk]]) 06:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)