| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 314: |
Line 314: |
| | == Trivia section for the early comics? == | | == Trivia section for the early comics? == |
| | | | |
| − | I noticed that the early xkcd comics that were [[:Category:Posted on LiveJournal|posted on livejournal]] sometimes have no real explanation (since there is really nothing much to explain), but feature a separate trivia section that mentions the original order, an alternative title text and/or a quote by Randall. Number [[7]] is a good example for it. I was wondering if it were not more practical to integrate the trivia section into the explanation text. Of course, it is strictly speaking not an explanation of the comic's ''contents'', but other explanations give meta information about the comic as well. As somebody in the section above has already mentioned: It is a thin line. I think, a separate trivia section only makes sense when there is 1) a full explanation of the comic that would otherwise be cluttered and 2) the trivia section contains technical meta information that does not add to the understanding of the comic (see [[1110]] for example). I think it more to the point to remove the trivia sections for the early comics altogether, but I thought I ask before anybody has to revert everything ;) -- [[User:LotharW|LotharW]] ([[User talk:LotharW|talk]]) 12:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | + | I noticed that the early xkcd comics that were [[:Category:Comics posted on livejournal|posted on livejournal]] sometimes have no real explanation (since there is really nothing much to explain), but feature a separate trivia section that mentions the original order, an alternative title text and/or a quote by Randall. Number [[7]] is a good example for it. I was wondering if it were not more practical to integrate the trivia section into the explanation text. Of course, it is strictly speaking not an explanation of the comic's ''contents'', but other explanations give meta information about the comic as well. As somebody in the section above has already mentioned: It is a thin line. I think, a separate trivia section only makes sense when there is 1) a full explanation of the comic that would otherwise be cluttered and 2) the trivia section contains technical meta information that does not add to the understanding of the comic (see [[1110]] for example). I think it more to the point to remove the trivia sections for the early comics altogether, but I thought I ask before anybody has to revert everything ;) -- [[User:LotharW|LotharW]] ([[User talk:LotharW|talk]]) 12:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
| | :That's still trivia that should probably stay in the trivia section, although the explanations for those comics do need work. Even if it's just to inform that reader that the earlier xkcd comics were more doodle-y than modern xkcd. '''[[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>]] 22:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | | :That's still trivia that should probably stay in the trivia section, although the explanations for those comics do need work. Even if it's just to inform that reader that the earlier xkcd comics were more doodle-y than modern xkcd. '''[[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>]] 22:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| Line 331: |
Line 331: |
| | ::''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.'' is still great. Black Hat is just telling the truth. But this and the "explainxkcd.com/X" should be moved to the bottom of the header.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | | ::''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.'' is still great. Black Hat is just telling the truth. But this and the "explainxkcd.com/X" should be moved to the bottom of the header.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC) |
| | ::: I'd like to see Black Hat saying it, but maybe at the bottom of the logo instead. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC) | | ::: I'd like to see Black Hat saying it, but maybe at the bottom of the logo instead. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | Now the black hat image is rather blurry.
| |
| | | | |
| | == Transcript Section == | | == Transcript Section == |
| Line 413: |
Line 411: |
| | I believe that the "simple country nanoenzyme developer" comment refers to the [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SimpleCountryLawyer Simple Country Lawyer trope]. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 19:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC) | | I believe that the "simple country nanoenzyme developer" comment refers to the [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SimpleCountryLawyer Simple Country Lawyer trope]. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 19:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | == Citation no longer needed? == | + | == What Kind of Comics Do You Read == |
| − | It seems like the inclusion of the {{Citation needed}} tag is getting less popular. Should these be removed or should they be allowed? [[User:Cwallenpoole|Cwallenpoole]] ([[User talk:Cwallenpoole|talk]]) 14:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :{{Citation needed}}... Less popular? I've just seen a retro-edit that added three (or four) CNs in a very old article. I don't think it has lost its popularity. It could be argued that it has lost its clarity (but only through overuse). I see no need to purge this feature, though of course anybody could hunt down and purge those instances they considered to be in excess (YMMV!) and anybody else could splurge them out again (with personal opinions again being the driving force).
| |
| − | :If you are indicating a personal opinion that CNs should ''not'' be being used, anywhere, say it straight. I think you'd be outvoted on the issue, but it would be more useful than just proclaiming it isn't used (clearly wrong).
| |
| − | :Overuse is bad, removing it isn't practical or desirable (you'd be reverted in an instant). Welcome to the complications of collaborative editing from a diverse group of fans. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: oh, I find it absolutely hilarious, but I have also seen people removing them. I just want to make sure it's still OK to add them. [[User:Cwallenpoole|Cwallenpoole]] ([[User talk:Cwallenpoole|talk]]) 16:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::Some people have less tolerance for them, definitely. If "The sky is blue**, water is wet**, fire is hot** and cats meow**" is marked up in each (or most) of the **-points then I would not be surprised or disappointed to see that de-CNed. If you ask me, the balance would be once used for every two or three articles (and in the ''best'' one of those two or three, nothing actually contentious or even not-always-true like the blue sky statement, but of course they could bunch up at times by looking wider around for each set of 'best's), but don't ask me to judge the best examples. And that's still an awful lot of total uses! Others would have differing thresholds/tolerances. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 20:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == New admins ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Been skimming around edit histories to see what I've missed and now I have candidates in mind for promotion to admin. I've linked a bureaucrat to this section who can promote any of the following who consent to promotion:
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[User:Jacky720]]: Contribution log going back to 2016, heavy contributor in recent anti-vandalism effort
| |
| − | *[[User:Theusaf]]: Creator of the current comic update bot
| |
| − | *[[User:Kynde]]: Editor for a decade, although may want to stay regular user
| |
| − | '''[[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>]] 02:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I consent. I'm not super active, but I visit explainxkcd multiple times a week and maintain the bot. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 07:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: done [[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] [[User:Jeff|<b><font color="orange">Jeff</font></b>]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 19:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | : I want to be clear that with the exception of the anti-vandalism script (which I did not write) I haven't been very active lately. Maybe I just find a lot of pages in an already-acceptable state. Still, I'm reading the wiki. So if the requirement is only ''presence'' and ''judgement'' rather than ''activity'', I'll take the post. Is it? [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 11:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::I sought out a fair number of people so that the load would be more distributed. The duties that adminship adds are just things like banning users and protecting pages, regular users can already fix content related things and vandalism. '''[[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>]] 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::: Slow as hell, but i did it. [[User:Jacky720]] and [[User:Kynde]] [[User:Jeff|<b><font color="orange">Jeff</font></b>]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 17:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Thanks Jeff. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I will accept being an admin. But I would like to know how to get hold of for instance Davidy or Jeff, so we can contact someone with more knowledge or power over this site, when it breaks down or is attacked again. Any way this can be arranged? And then I would also like to know what being an admin means here. Which powers do we get? I have not tried being an admin of anything before ;-) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I've always contacted jeff via twitter, which is linked via his userpage, though we've been in contact over email too. I don't use my twitter account for anything else otherwise, and I'm mostly dead on a lot of social media but I have the same username on github and I do use that site a fair bit if you want to contact me via alternate means. [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:ListGroupRights You can see the full set of rights each role has here], but the ones that'll come up the most are probably the rollback button, bans and page protection/deletion. '''[[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>]] 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == One-click undo script for reverting vandalism ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I've made an extremely crude script to expedite vandalism removal at [[User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js]]; basically, it changes all "undo" links to work without the confirmation screen. Simple as that and hopefully helpful for cleaning up this mess!
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'm hoping to also make something that can work on contribs pages, but my scripting skills aren't that great.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, if you are aware of any scripts that do this better (I hope there are), please share them here. [[User:CRLF|CRLF]] ([[User talk:CRLF|talk]]) 02:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Update: I have added the functionality to have this on contribution pages; it should create a link "[revert]" next to each page name that allows you to similarly revert in one click. There is one known glitch though, that it doesn't really work if a user has edited the same page multiple times, so to alleviate that I recommend ticking the "Only show edits that are latest revisions" box on the contribs list. I hope this tool will be helpful in combating future vandalism.
| |
| − | :I almost forgot to mention, the way you install this script is by adding the following text to the bottom of [[Special:MyPage/common.js]] (sorry, only for autoconfirmed users):
| |
| − | :<code><nowiki>mw.loader.load('//www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // [[User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js]]</nowiki></code>
| |
| − | :Hope this helps! [[User:CRLF|CRLF]] ([[User talk:CRLF|talk]]) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Semi-persistant gambling portal ads being attempted... ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | There have been a number of link-insertions made over the last few weeks (some returning to where they'e previously reverted out), seemingly of various groups of sites under the name "<two letters>+portmanteau('''C A S I''' n o & s i '''M I L E''')", here written slightly obtusely to diffuse giving them any of the SEO credit they seek, but anyone interested should be able to get enough of the gist to then find examples of their spamming. Usually the two letters are for '''AU'''stralia or '''N'''ew '''J'''ersey, but I think there have been others.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A quick search seems not to give any 'core' business name precursor to the state/country regionalisation part, they seem to have just gone straight to the localised domains. And searching for them indicates they're popping up in many an odd place 'out there'. Like a site reviewing walking(/zimmer?)-frames, or (strangely, as it's the AU-branded site) "looking for developers in the Chicago area", so they're poking away out there. But we're just as busily poking them back out again by reverting, both myself and (I've noted) other major contributors/maintainers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | But making an official(ish) note. If anybody gets an automated content de-publishing mechanism up (e.g. for the C R A P style of stuff) then maybe they can figure out this one enough to also counter its reappearance.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As a direct example, dive into what occured to cause [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=850:_World_According_to_Americans&curid=6034&diff=286767&oldid=286591 this pairing of edit/undo-edit]... (Easy enough to check, by clicking things, but I'm not giving an easily search-spiderable link that promotes their site like they might want!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.32|141.101.99.32]] 14:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Unlike the SEO spam that gets stopped normally, I suspect this is a human solving captchas to insert links, so automated measures would have to be cat and mouse blacklisting link insertions probably, if we got an auto reverter bot 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>]] 02:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Transcript standards ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I was just wondering, what is our policy on formatting in transcripts? Tables, text size, color, italics, etc. [[User:Char Latte49|Char Latte]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 23:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :The idea is no tables, IIRC, though I know of exceptions that do use them. Other in-situ formatting should be allowable but (if important) actually stated in the :[Description] tags, or somehow.
| |
| − | :One of the ideas is that a screen-reader should be able to reliably inform someone of what they might not be able to see. And, depending upon the reader can probably read "½" accurately, may be able to read "1/2" at least in an understandable manner, could perhaps handle "<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>" without (much) more confusing, yet may find something like "<table style="display: inline-table; line-height: 0.6em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:7pt; text-size-adjust: none;"><tr><td><u>1</u></td></tr><tr><td>2</td></tr></table>" (<code><nowiki><table style="display: inline-table; line-height: 0.6em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:7pt; text-size-adjust: none;"><tr><td><u>1</u></td></tr><tr><td>2</td></tr></table></nowiki></code>) makes for something of no real sense to the reader or the listener to the reader or both.
| |
| − | :Secondary is that maybe a search for "red text" should reveal all comics with red text (not easy to do on digging ingo HTML style formatting alone), though I'm sure that the relevent transcripts are so standardised.
| |
| − | :Not the expert on the issue, just how I've seen it posited elsewhere (but inconsistently, at that). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.225|172.70.85.225]] 00:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == What is [[:Category:Meta]] for? ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I've stumbled upon [[:Category:Meta]], and it seemed so random. Three of the 4 books were on it, but I removed them because there already is a category for Randall's books. There are also pages like Browser extension, Characters, the Countdown in header text... what do all those pages have in common? (The category description doesn't help.). [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == 2765 has been completed, you can change the "incomplete explanation" thing now ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Maybe change it now?
| |
| − | | |
| − | == What's going on with the incomplete comics? ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | I've noticed a the number dropping rapidly, and I'm worried people/someone is just removing incomplete tags randomly from pages. If not, it's great that these are getting done, but I remember some very large/complicated comics that couldn't just be finished quickly. The edit history is pretty spammy, it's hard to find the source. [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 08:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
| + | Hello Guys, |
| − | :People ''have'' been removing the Incomplete tags from pages. Not so much "randomly" as actually removing them from some of the latest few. Even going so far as to remove such a tag from an article not yet a day old. (Really too soon, IMO. There are always going to be people who take ''at least'' a day to check in to discover the latest comic's item, and then produce some personal take on it that makes what was there "not yet complete" to reasonable eyes.)
| |
| − | :The whole Incompleteness thing has developed, anyway. Originally, it was even a matter of whether a page ''existed'' for a comic (catching up/backfilling with earlier-than-the-wiki comics) until at least placeholders/blank explanations for them all were created by users and Bots. Then "incomplete" was a tag used to identify the created comics that hadn't been properly filled in with intelligent (or sufficient) explanations.
| |
| − | :Even that era is now over, as it is rare that someone doesn't rock up with an explanation for a new comic within an hour or so of it being editable. The Incomplete tag has co-evolved as a community side-joke as to what (other than a Bot) created this particular page. Which some people seem not to have realised as they (in good faith, no doubt) de-Incomplete a number of recent pages at a time.
| |
| − | :Not that I think one should never remove the tags, but my opinion is:
| |
| − | :*If someone has just edited (more?) info into a page, they shouldn't have the hubris to consider it now complete thanks to their own 'final' work, let someone else have that say; assuming they don't have more to say (or a revert/back-edit/correction of their own), having their own ideas of how 'complete' it became,
| |
| − | :*If the comic is less than a week old, many people may have been familiar with (and happy with) the thorough explanation... but that occasional guy or gal who only checks in every Wednesday/weekend/whenever, when they have time to browse all their favourite webcomic metasites, ''could'' bring along an insight that everyone else missed - technically, they could do this (and do?) for even more ancient examples that they've yet to notice, but "giving the 'regulars' (<= those that are not also ''hyper''frequent) a week or so" a shot at working on an Incomplete page seems like courtesy,
| |
| − | :*As the developed joke is that an early editor adds the 'community comment' about which non-BOT entity/process created the page, give everyone familiar with this the chance to ''have seen'' each prime example, this includes the once-a-week individual(s), from the above point, even if they have nothing new to add,
| |
| − | :**...as a meta to this, generally one of the first editors to discover the BOTted page (or maybe the one that did the temporarily tardy BOT's work!) will make their mark on it by so editing (I personally consider it poor form to ''only'' "first!" a page by editing this tag and then doing nothing more to fill in even just the Transcript, BTW, but YMMV). Obviously, not all such spontaneous jokes are top-notch funny (to all people), but one need not go in later and 'rejoke it' just for one's own ego (at least as much as the "first!"er type). It loses its cultural impact if (as per one recent page) it becomes a competition to keep on changing the tag indefinitely. Respect the joke that you may find there (spelling/formatting errors aside?), enjoy it, feel smug that you "would have done it better" (more smug than actually doing it, only for your "better" to be in turn bested/wiped by someone else soon after). There are some very clever BOT-replacements that have been done (I've tried a few, myself, but can't/won't claim to be the genius editor of any of the good ones) and I have an offline list of many of these, but that's perhaps a little ''too'' meta for explainxkcd...
| |
| − | :*Finally, the editors who go through 'wiping' a series of Incompletes at a time (even as recent as with the present day's released comic) tend to show willing and eager wiki-editing capabilities, but are clearly 'new' to not realise the value (beyond the original intention) placed upon the tag. The kind of people who might not yet realise that the Citation Needed has an explainxkcd 'twist' to it (or, having realised the twist, think that they're the first person to consider how funny it would be to use that tag ''at least twice a paragraph, or even multiple times in a single sentence...''. I welcome fresh editors, but I know what some of them feel. I remember being annoying to the 'old guard' on a BBS during pre-Web era... even back then, the best advice really was to lurk, observe, contribute sparingly... even now, in fact, I still tend to be oververbose, but at least I don't overdo the same thing (addition or removal of things) to ridiculuous degrees like I did practically a third of a century ago.
| |
| − | :...not that I expect the above to match everyone's feelings (even a majority?), nor to claim authority (far from it, I like being an occasional commentator without the pressures of responsibility). And anyone who ''might'' benefit from this exposition is unlikely to read it (soon) anyway!
| |
| − | :But I can definitely provide my insight on the original question (yes, they're being removed, not ''really'' randomly). And, if there's anything particularly likely to draw my attention to there being '[[386: Duty Calls|something wrong]] on a somewhat historic xkcd explanation' then it's someone removing the Incomplete tag and getting me to read it "for old times' sake" (to find obvious typos, grammatical mixups, broken links or just plain awkward/missing elements). Occasionally, I'll even restore the Incomplete tag because, whatever subsequent fix I might or might not do myself, it's not my call to say that it's "perfect".
| |
| − | :Though obviously edits can (and do) still occur with-or-without. Which leads back to my valuing the tags as these days more cultural than a strict tally of completeness/lack-of-it. There's no reason why they shouldn't be removed, but generally not a batch at a time. Barring long and still not fully resolved 'megacomics'/interactives, perhaps around a fortnight or a month before (at the rough rate of three a week, to match the new comics gaining the tags) might be sufficient and not excessive. Leaving on the order of 5-10 'recent' Incompletes, plus any hangovers that are still potentially expandable (Gravity-like, or Umwelt).
| |
| − | :Can't stop the eager editors who have much more slimline ideas, and could displease those who think the meta-joke trumps the actual Incompleteness marking and should hang around indefinitely, but this is my own broadly happy middle-ground. Not that anyone asked. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.181|172.69.43.181]] 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ::I apologize if this goes off-topic, but I recently made an early BOT replacement "joke" that was unnecessarily crudely worded and I just want to say I wish I hadn't done that. If I'm in a rush to add the first draft of a transcript, basic category details or alike, and want to act quick to avoid potential edit conflicts, from now on I'll let the BOT field be untouched if I can't spontaneously think of anything worthwhile to type there. [[User:Asdf|Asdf]] ([[User talk:Asdf|talk]]) 13:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
| + | What comics would you prefer to read? Mine was the battle between phone manufacturers such as Android and Apple. It really is fun to read, especially when both company fight until the phones got smashed up, luckily they have a strong [https://www.hengwincase.com/product-category/cellphone-holsters/ leather cell phone case] that were worn that time. |
| − | :::Something that's funny at two o'clock in the morning (but not even necessarily then, nor need it require alcohol/sugar/etc) is often not quite so much after some thought. But sometimes it ''is'', so we can't blame you for having a go. ;) I suppose I'd say that if it hasn't already been squished by a more savvy future editor, you should just take the first opportunity to improve (or roll-back) your not so good ideas, once you're in a more objective/critical mindset.
| |
| − | :::On-topic, one also shouldn't "decide to de-Incomplete comics" without much thought. And if you're doing several at the same time you should at least have been monitoring them; not just choose one to remove it from, then click "Next/Previous" and wipe that one off, rinse-and-repeat. If I see multiple removals in the Recent history then I'm inclined to believe it's an ideological act, not from any considered review. If you really want to, save up the 'next' one for the day after (at least make it look like you slept on it), etc, and you're still capable of expunging seven of them a week, as opposed to the usual generation of them at three per week. You can still 'win', without looking like a total jobsworth. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.28|172.70.90.28]] 16:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
