Talk:Main Page

This page is for discussion of the Main Page itself. Other issues probably belong at the Explain XKCD:Community portal.

As a new user, I think the first page is very important. So I thought why not begin a discussion here what to have on the first page every user visits.--Relic (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT) Re-signed here - b/c I broke the comment in two when I added the "List of comics" header. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

List of comics

I was thinking of having a quick link to the list of comics that is explained. Right know, it took me a while to even see any of them. Eventually I found the "List All Pages" (found it in Special pages) where I could find the comics that have been explained. What do you think?

A category tag will do that for you automatically. Having a list of comics indexed by its number would be a little different.--Relic (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Sounds like a great list - I think it'd have to be manually maintained until/unless we get someone who knows how to make a bot update it. Categories will be useful, but they only work if someone added the category to the page in the first place. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:21, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

A (somewhat) related question - should Category:Comics be sorted alphabetically or by comic number? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:43, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

I think Category:Comics should be sorted by comic number. If you are looking for a specific comic, you will use the search field. Is there a way to make that happen? --Jeff (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

They are two different functions. For the former, instead of adding [[Category:Comics]], add, say, [[Category:Comics|1]]. For the second, we can create redirects. Normally, I'd say just make sure the search term was in the article text, but since numbers are going to be use for other purposes than just comic titles, it may be better to create 1 and Comic 1 as redirects to the relevant articles right off the bat. --08:24, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

We could also have a comic-list template on the Main Page, I suppose, or perhaps two - one for number and one for name? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:54, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Here's what I was thinking of for that: {{Comics navbox}} Thoughts? Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}

(outdent) It's ugly, but a sortable wikitable (click here for example) could be used as a checklist to see what has been uploaded and what hasn't. What's the project namespace here, anyway (analogue of "WP:")? --SurturZ (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

OK, I've found a way to get all the titles of the comics, so I was confident enough to create

Explain XKCD:Checklist

which can be used to fill in the gaps. --SurturZ (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

I'm liking the checklist! That should do quite nicely as a "tool for editors". (I'm linking to it at the Community Portal). We still need the "template for readers." Did you think {{Comics navbox}} was on the right track or should we do something else for that? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:09, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Better idea - I'm throwing it directly onto the Main Page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Admin list

You can find a system-accurate list of admins here, so that might good to share, along with the manual list. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:13, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Added to page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:10, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

That's exactly what I wanted, but couldn't find the auto page for it. I knew it was somewhere. I don't see any reason to keep the link to the manual page. Do you? --Jeff (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Not unless you want it. I'll remove it. Should I add the similar link for 'crats or is that unnecessary at this point? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

To be honest, I have no idea what the Burecrats role does. Might be unnecessary now but helpful in the future? --Jeff (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Bureaucrats can turn other users into administrators (or indeed, other bureaucrats). That privilege isn't available to ordinary administrators. I'd keep it to yourself for the time being. :-) --Yirba (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

You can actually see a technical list of which rights each group confers at Special:ListGroupRights. As the wiki grows, you might want to spin off a few, such as the ability to grant rollbacker and autopatrolled, to admins as some other wikis have. But for the time being, at least, there's really no reason for the wiki to have more than one 'crat. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:07, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Community portal

I've created the Explain XKCD:Community portal as a tools/help page. If that's not what you want, feel free to change/move/whatever it, but I thought it'd be nice to save this page for discussion of the Main Page and discuss the wiki as a whole/ask for help there. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:36, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Direct link to latest comic

There should be a direct link to the latest comic at the top of the Main page. A nice thing about going to explainxkcd.com was that the latest comic is right there at the top. For those changing their default link to the wiki, there should be an easy "Latest Comic" link that quickly takes them there. I'm sure some folks actually skip xkcd.com and come directly here instead to read the latest offering from Randall. They shouldn't have to search for it. - CFoxx (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Maybe the page latest should redirect to the most recent comic? Could that be taken care of by some sort of script/template so it doesn't have to be manually updated? Should each explination page also have "next", "previous", "random", "first" and "latest" links, possibly also generated automatically via scripts/templates? Additionally, shouldn't the number page be the canonical one? It seems like Internal monologue should redirect to 1089 rather than the other way around - certainly it would make a bunch of scripting types of things a lot easier. J-beda (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

If you wanted, we could even use wiki-magic to show the title of the page as the Comic name, but the URL as the number - in order to parallel the actual XKCD website. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:09, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be a way to programmatically find the comic with the highest number that has a page with content? That would work as long as no one puts future comic pages up. --Jeff (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

It's all sounding like folks are over-complicating something quite easy. All I'm suggesting is a prominent link to http://www.xkcd.com/. No need, I think, to list which number the latest is, or include the next/last/random buttons, etc. - CFoxx (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Oh. We've got that, now, in the sidebar - labeled as "XKCD." I do think that having an internal link to the latest (explained) comic would be a great thing, though. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:36, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

You can transclude the latest comic on the main page like this: {{:pagename}} e.g. {{:Internal_monologue}} --SurturZ (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

I've started with just a manual link to the latest comic. Ideally it will be automatic, but a manual link will work for now as I've had quite a few people ask for it. --Jeff (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Transclusion of the latest comic is great. Someone with the right permissions should add (for instance on the top-right corner of the grey transclusion area) a link to edit the corresponding wiki page, so that people seeing something they could add would feel invited to do so (wiki style). In my opinion this would be a good way to improve the quality of the user-generated explanations. Also, all the "XKCD"s in the "New here?" section should be converted to the lowercase "xkcd"... Cos (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I've done both. --Waldir (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Call me dumb, but... You've got a link called "prev" that goes to the explaination for the previous comic. Then a link called "comic #42" but that goes to xkcd. And then a smaller, less prominent link called "go to this comic" that doesn't go to the comic but to its explaination. Anyone else think that's a little back-to-front? Zootle (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're dumb :-). The standard template for an explanation page includes the header with "Prev", "Comic # (date)", and "Next" links. If we don't have explanation pages for the previous or next comic, we don't show the respective link. I hadn't noticed that the "Comic # (date)" bit was a link to the xkcd site before, but in context it makes sense to me. Including a link to the Explain page for the comic who's explain page you are already looking at doesn't make sense.

The explanation page for the latest comic is "transcluded" in the main page pretty much as-is, so we get the header, the comic, the explanation, etc. We don't get the discussion, which is visible at the bottom of the Explain page. Because there is never an explanation for a comic that hasn't been released yet, there is never a "Next" link on the main page's transcluded header. So you get "Prev" and "Comic" links. The "Go to this comic" link is added by the main page above the transcluded explain page.

I can see how the "Go to this comic" link might be poorly worded especially as it's placement seems to be within the explanation it's linking to. Blaisepascal (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than "Go to this comic" maybe it could be "Go to full explanation" ? Something else? J-beda (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion at one point about a wittier/more descriptive link - but no one came up with anything. I do like "Go to Full Explanation" better, for what it's worth. --DanB (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My problem with that suggestion is that it implies that the main page explanation is not full. As of right now, the full explanation is transcluded on the main page. There's nothing more to see by clicking that link (explanation wise) Perhaps "Go to full explanation page" but that doesn't quite sound right to me... TheHYPO (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about "Go to this Comic Explanation Page"? One nice thing about the specific page rather than the Main_Page transcoding is that it nicely includes the discussion as well. I have a bookmark to the Main_Page that I look at every day, but I want to easily read the discussions, not only the explanation. Humm, maybe we could have a page most recent comic that automagically redirects to the most recent comic? J-beda (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get most recent comic to redirect to LATESTCOMIC, but can't get the syntax working - it is possible? J-beda (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it isn't. I would have tried #REDIRECT [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] like you did, but since that doesn't work, I'll delete the page for now. --Waldir (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of latest comic

Perhaps include the discussions of the latest comic here? I almost missed there was a discussion field a few times because I would only read about the latest comic on the main page. Carewolf (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This comics's explanation is complete bollocks, I think. Of course it is NOT a "fact that such a room exists". This comics parodies trope often used in cop movies - an elderly cop goes to work for the last time before his retirement, packs things, plans fishing the next day ... only to be called to one more case (possibly with a new, young and brash partner). And despites his efforts not to screw anything and stay clear of danger, he is either mortally wounded or screws big time and is degraded. So much clichè, that if someone says "It's my last day or service", you might be sure one of the two options above happens. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retirony Edheldil 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The comic explanation count is wrong

The adjustment is currently 3, but there are now 6 subcategories and one list making the current correct adjustment 7. If the wiki was upgraded to version 1.20, a form exists to automatically exclude subcategories. --Divad27182 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another week of the wiki going down then.

But seriously, I've been noticing this too. Didn't know what was causing it, but it's going to have to be fixed sometime.Davidy22 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The text reads

We already have [[:Category:Comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-3}}''' comic explanations]]!

The -3 is to account for the subcategories and non-explanation pages in the category. There apparently used to be three such pages, and now there are seven. I would fix this myself, but the page is protected. If the wiki where upgraded to version 1.20, the categories could be explicitly excluded, but the List of all comics would still be in the category. (Note that the -3 actually appears twice.) --Divad27182 (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki 1.20 fixes this issue, although it'd be nice if this could be fixed in the meantime via the hack reccommended by divad. Davidy²²(talk) 06:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Waldir updated the "Comic Correction Count" to "10" (as of 20 November 2012):

 We already have [[:Category:Comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-10}}''' comic explanations]]!</big>
    Note: the -10 in the calculation above is to discount subcategories (there are 7 of them as of 20 November 2012),
    non-comic pages (2 as of same date: [[List of all comics]] and [[Exoplanet]])
    and the comic 404, which was deliberately not posted. Thus 7 + 2 + 1 = 10
 (But there are still {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-10)}} to go. Come and [[List of all comics|add yours]]!)

Could we possibly make this more dynamic by creating a "IGNORE_IN_COUNT" category or something? and then using something like: {#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-{{PAGESINCAT:IGNORE_IN_COUNT}}}? Then any additional entries to the "Comics" category (that are 'special' entries) could just have the special category added and no main page editing would be necessary? --B. P. (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Make Jeff stop apologizing

The apology for server downtime has been around for a while now. Can we take it down? Davidy22 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Spambots

I think someone should install AbuseFilter. --Kronf (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Purge

We should regularly purge the server's cache for the main page using http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge to keep the explanation up to date. --Kronf (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Updating the Rules

I've been having a lovely discussion with someone who apparently thought the "edit anything you want" rule applied to the Talk pages. As we don't have any codified rules for here and can only point to "well the canonical way this is done on Wikipedia is..." I think that there are a few things we need to put into the list of Rules on the front page, and then have a link to a more in-depth talk about why the rules exist and what-not.

Specifically, I'm talking about writing "Feel free to edit any page on the wiki to be better. But, treat talk pages like you would blog comments: comments by other people cannot be changed by you, you can only respond to them." as a new rule to be plastered on the front page, as there seems to be an increasing number social neophytes that seem to think that editing words that are attributed as being said by another person is perfectly legitimate and non-controversial.

Shall we discuss? lcarsos_a (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We could add the etiquette rules as an addendum to the signature reminder at the top of the page. Just an extra note below the alert box asking people to not edit other people's comments. Davidy²²(talk) 06:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It really should be right down with the "edited mercilessly" description, because this is an exception to that statement. Shouldn't have two sets of contradictory instructions in different places. When I made my improper edit, I had a semi-conscious moment of doubt about whether changing the other guy's comment was ok, even though this is a wiki (and even though it wasn't really clear to me that this "discussion" box held something totally separate from the page content), but that statement at the bottom put all such doubts to rest. I read it multiple times to be sure. But I did not notice that line at the top about the four tildes until much later. It's somewhat lost, visually, in the header line, when you're not looking directly at it.50.0.38.245 18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There's discussion to replace that message with a more noticeable alert box. The message at the bottom of the page appears for all pages, including talk pages, so a talk-page specific message there would not entirely fit. Davidy²²(talk) 00:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If that text at the bottom is in fact alterable, it should be written to take every case into account. It's an extremely poor user interface that has instructions appearing on a page stating rules that are the exact opposite of reality. And note that the altert box on the top looks a lot like a banner add, when you don't focus on it and read it. People will tend to habitually filter out anything written there from their perception. Also, it can easily be scrolled off the top of the screen when the discussion starts to get long, and they have a preview displayed.

So I think after the "...then do not submit it here.", it should add, "Exception: others' comments in Discussion pages are not to be altered. See full rules at <<link to appropriate wikipedia page>>."50.0.38.245 15:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Update after changes

The front page explanation hasn't been updated at all day to match changes in the explanation on the comic's page. This is a major problem i think, as it is the front page explanation people visitors will most often read. --St.nerol (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It might be a caching issue. Appending &action=purge to the URL will probably fix it. Can you confirm it looks good to you now? --Waldir (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, now it updates instantly! Well done, whatever you did! :) --St.nerol (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also added a link underneath the comic box that has the action embedded, so no one has to do any manual URL hacking. lcarsos_a (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change "Go to this comic" to "Go to this entry"

Just a small suggestion. For the Main Page, I suggest changing "Go to this comic" to say "Go to this entry" instead to remove any confusion for new and regular viewers. It certainly took me a while to figure how to go to each featured comic's entry from the main page.

69.43.114.2 17:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How about if it reads "Go to this comic explanation"? Would that be less confusing? I only quibble because the explanations aren't really entries, in wiki parlance each page is usually called an article, but that doesn't seem to fit here as we really have explanation pages. lcarsos_a (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Randy Marsh (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Explain the Unreleased Comic?

I wonder if [this comic] is permitted to be explained, despite the double issue of Randall pulling the comic plus me finding the pulled comic through "xkcd overrated"... Greyson (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comic 1156

I don't have an account to edit the page directly, so here's an edit someone should make: It looks like whoever wrote the existing page simply googled 'conditioning' and found the first link that came up. Please modify the link to point to 'Classical conditioning', not 'Operant conditioning'. Thanks. 124.191.56.91 (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2013‎ (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Hi. This is the talk page for the main page of the wiki. This page only has a "view" of the actual comic explanation. The actual explanation page is at 1156: Conditioning, and I assure you, edit permissions have not been restricted for that page. Someone has already changed the page to link to Classical conditioning, but the original editor came back stating that Operant was correct. If you would like to start a discussion about this on the talk page for this explanation that would be much more conducive to getting this matter settled. lcarsos_a (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comic Links

Some of the links seem to be confusing, as they're titled in a weird way. The link/button 'go to this comic', I'd expect would go to the actual comic on XKCD's page. Yet it goes to the comic's wiki page. And clicking on the comic # and date directs you to the XKCD page, yet I really feel that link should go to the wiki page, as it's right at the top center there, and has the date and everything, sort of indicating that it's a wiki page, yet it's not. And the prev and next buttons next to it don't go to the xkcd page, they go to the wiki pages. Which is really messed up, I think. Because of my confusion, every single time I visit here, I clicked on the wrong link, though now I've gotten used to it. I suggest rewording the links as 'XKCD Comic # and date' and 'go to this comic's wiki page'. And possibly switching the links' positions so that the wiki links could be in that navigation bar and the XKCD links could be off to the side. After all, we are a wiki, so putting our wiki links to the comic off to the side and the direct xkcd link in the center seems odd. Anyway, has anyone had the same thoughts and/or agree with me on this?--69.119.250.251 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained comics

The template that starts each explanation page should be edited to have the next and previous buttons automatically skip over pages that don't exist, rather than simply not being there if comic n+1 or n-1 doesn't exist. Preferably it would append a notice to the next page (like the redirect notices commonly found on mediawiki) telling you how many comics have been skipped. I'm not sure how feasible this would be to script, however. 130.160.145.185 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of remaining comics calculation is off...

Okay, I hate to be "that pedantic math guy", but... Today the main page reads "We have collaboratively explained 936 xkcd comics, and only 252 (27%) remain." While I agree that 252/936 is roughly 27%, I believe we should really be calculating the percentage as "the number left to explain" divided by "the total number of comics that exist", not divided by "the number we have finished". That is (today), 252/1188=21%. Think about it. If we had completed 594 comics today, with 594 remaining, what should the percentage be? 594/594=100%? That's not right... 594/1188=50%? That's what we really want to say.

The page is protected, which makes sense. So I'll make my suggestion here.

Change this:

and only {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)}}
({{#expr: ({{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)) / ({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9) * 100 round 0}}%)
remain.

To this:

and only {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)}}
({{#expr: ({{LATESTCOMIC}}-({{PAGESINCAT:Comics}}-9)) / {{#expr:{{LATESTCOMIC}}}} * 100 round 0}}%)
remain.

Imperpay (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done and done. Davidy²²[talk] 15:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! However, notice that the #expr: around LATESTCOMIC was unnecessary. I've removed it. Waldir (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Waldir, you have exposed me as a charlatan and a fool! (I just copied, pasted, and tinkered until I made something that worked. I don't actually understand it. No formal training, you see. It's what we used to call "hacking" back in the dawn of the digital era, before the word took on connotations of vandalism, trespassing, and fraud. Have you kids come up with another word for it?) Imperpay (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Joke's on me then, 'cause you sure fooled me – I readily assumed you knew your way around those parser functions. Nice job hacking the code, it was a nearly perfect crime ;) --Waldir (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've heard the cool kids call that the "Maker Mentality", usually with a reference to Make magazine and Maker Faire. But I think there's also a movement to resurrect the original meaning of hacker. lcarsos_a (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

sidebar ads?

Moved to explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals –– St.nerol (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Expression error on Main Page

Please use {{PAGESINCAT:...|R}} instead of {{PAGESINCAT:...}} to correct these errors :) --110.168.83.62 10:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Dun diddly done. Davidy²²[talk] 11:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Compile a list of non-technical comics to non-technical readers?

I'm a long-time reader and fan of >< |< C |}, but my normal approach is useless when I introduce this provocative comic series to my less technical friends. They stay at the apparent level of many comics. They don't bother reading the explanations, but they would say, "it's hard to make sense". Imagine an average non-technical (and non-arts) major guy/girl, can we compile a list of state-of-the-art but less-technical, easy-to-comprehend but "ah ha!!" strips that is suitable for them? --W shll nvr flly xpln xkcd! (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god that signature.

Gaah, derailment. Uh, pretty much anything that isn't tagged with the physics or math categories are easy enough to understand for the average English speaker, so just check the categories at the bottom of the page for that. Also, avoid comics with the incomplete tag, and that oughta be fine. Davidy²²[talk] 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Quit building?

This post was moved to Talk:1214: Geoguessr.

Hello, this is the talk page for the content of the front page of the wiki, not for discussion of the most recent comic, that happens here. I've moved your post over there for you. Cheers, and welcome to explain xkcd! lcarsos_a (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

List of incomplete comics

We need a link to the "Incomplete articles" at the main page below the "Missing link". Most pages are created but many are incomplete.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Header message

Please don't take this seriously unless you actually think it's a good idea:

I think the header should be changed from "explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb." to "explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb... or still have some hope that comic 1190 will end." or something similar. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 14:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope! This page is trying to explain more than 1222 comics, not only 1190: Time. The header just states the truth.--Dgbrt (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A point of confusion

Why is 'Apatosaurus' a category but 'Internet Argument' no longer a category? Greyson (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cuz people hit the random button, see an Apatosaurus feature in three comics and figure it must be a recurring theme. Same as the internet argument thing. Will get round to a category purge after we've cleared out all the incomplete tags. I think there's one for ferrets hidden away somewhere in the dark recesses of our catalog of categories. Davidy²²[talk] 14:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

On the subject, can I suggest a "Barred from Conferences" category, or similar? That's definitely a recurring theme (for a long, long time), and thus should be justified enough. I'd be happy to add various qualifying articles as I scroll through again, if I can, but first I'll leave it up to someone else to solidify the actual name. (In case it turns out not to be just conferences, for example.) 178.98.31.27 16:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete comics statement

I suggest the minor change: "We have an explanation for all x xkcd comics, and only y (y/x %) are marked as incomplete." –St.nerol (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)