Talk:Xkcd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xkcd article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: Start Class Low Priority  Field: General
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Xkcd, has edited Wikipedia as
Xkcd (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1: Aug 2006 - May 2007


Contents

[edit] Barrel guy as Recurring character?

The barrel guy was in five, early doodles and has barely mentioned since (or at all!). Would he really be considered a reacurring character? And if so, what about the red spiders? They have appeared in numerous comics. Bit101 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Red Cape & Goggles

Anyone want to have a discussion on whether the new picture should be there or not? Thanks. David McCabe 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Being that the caption is wrong, and that the picture has nothing to do with the comic, no. If by some miracle the xkcd blog becomes notable, then I guess it would merit some consideration. until then the caption is patently false and unencyclopedic. --YbborTalk 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree it's questionable to put this in the encyclopedia. However, the caption is exactly true. David McCabe 04:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, for the reasons stated above. It doesn't add anything to the article.   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The caption told the truth. Think of it as xkcdality. In all seriousness, I agree that it was non-notable, and the article looks better without it in my opinion. --LuigiManiac 04:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. A distinct lack of encyclopedic value is added by the inclusion of the image. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
the image and caption add nothing to the article and should be removed not be re-added--Cadet hastings 22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a notation of the fact that the blogger that is featured in the comic (Don't remember his name) was sent a Red Cape and Goggles in the "Life Imitating xkcd" area. Quadrius 18:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is the fourth entry in the "Life Imitates XKCD", I think it's covered. Improbcat 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making Out With Yourself

I've reverted the addition (accidentally submitted before completing my edit summary) of making out with one's self as an official theme, as the tooltip states "Making out with yourself: now an official xkcd theme? Troubling." I certainly don't think this constitutes an official theme.   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing anything or is the current count at a whopping two references? today's, and Parallel universe? --YbborTalk 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that there was another in the "Choices" series. The Dark Overlord (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "My hobby" is Randall?

Is it? Needs a citation maybe? I always read it like a vox-pop segment with a different character tell you about their hobby each time. A Geek Tragedy 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First person pronouns are rarely Randall.Tar7arus 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm tugging that claim out. A Geek Tragedy 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An interview

I interviewed Randall Munroe a short time ago, and so somebody that is not me should be editing the information into the article (WP:NOR and all). Tar7arus 16:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that really a reliable source? --YbborTalk 00:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I am all but certain the site fails WP:WEB and is a Primary Source. So, uh... wait for a seconday source to come up? Tar7arus 08:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
How will that ever happen? :-P --84.190.200.34 23:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Change

In my opinion there are more suitable xkcd comics than the one selected for use (although there's certainly nothing wrong with it) - for example http://xkcd.com/c214.html or http://xkcd.com/c285.html which both make a direct reference to Wikipedia. I would just change the image myself but there seems to be miniature fanbases of editors growing around pages like these recently that'll go nuts if I change the headline image without proposing it first ;) Sean 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realise there had already been a debate about this issue... I'll add The Problem with Wikipedia outside of the infobox and see if there's an uproar of indignation or a ho-hum of quiet approval :) Sean 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Since c214.html is non free content, you really can't add it outside the infobox without a reference discussing that comic strip. I agree with you to replace the existing infobox comic strip with c214.html or c285.html. I prefer c285.html (it's funny to me), but which ever one you want to use is fine with me. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Quiet approval here, was just about to make the same suggestion, but for c285 :) Goodralph 04:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the comics are free content (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 to be specific). Tomgreeny 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you change the picture, but not to those. Read WP:ASR. Those two might be funnier to us because they mention Wikipedia, but there are certainly better choices that aren't self-references. --Rory096 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually came on Wikipedia in the couple of minutes I have here on the computer... But I think the frequency that [xkcd mentions Wikipedia] and the comedy value of it might allow us to bend the rules guidelines a little and use [285] somewhere on the page? Sean 01:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so everyone's one the same page, the old discussions about which comic to use was here, and the section immediately below it. The issue I would have with c214 or c285 is that it's not really typical of Randal's work. Most of xkcd is cartoons of about four panels featuring stick figures. c214 and c285 are not representative in this regard. Also, artistically I think that c285 is not a good representation, as some people on the forums expressed surprise at the inclusion of fingers on the speaking politician, something Randall rarely does. The currently selected comic is representative of both the seriousness (existentialism) and the craziness (super-soaker) seen in the series, while still being representative of xkcd art. c214 and c285 are uncharacteristically specific in their references, and some people might get the idea that Randall's comic devotes a considerable portion of the comic to our corner of the interblag.--YbborTalk 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
EDIT:oh, and "the frequency that xkcd mentions Wikipedia"? So far that seems like a whopping two references, and an additional one on his blog. That's comparable to the frequency with which he mentions cats: [1] [2]. --YbborTalk 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to restore the original comic image (the final panel with the squirt gun) -- I think it works better than this one, anyway (and is readable on the wikipedia page). I didn't want to cramp the article's style with my license.  :) What's the best way to go about the licensing? And are there any other images anyone wants to be more-freed, while I'm taking requests? Xkcd 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)xkcd

I think the easiest (edit: see below for easier way) way would be to go the philosophy comic and insert a line beneath the image noting the change in license (to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, GFDL, or PD). If you wanted to do it the hard/long way you can use the Open Ticket Response System, but I think that takes longer. I've never used the system, so I couldn't tell you much about it, but if that's the way you want to go, I can direct you to someone who does know (in essence: write permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org filling out the form hre). Actually, procedure isn't being followed very closely on the Wikipedian Protester in that regard. Alternatively, you could upload the image yourself here, with eh proper tag, and a quick explanation that you know it says on the actual page it's a CC-BY-NC, but that you're overriding that. Thanks for helping out :) --YbborTalk 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, the easiest way would probably just be to go the image page and replace all the fair use mumbo jumbo with {{self|Cc-by-sa-2.0}}. --YbborTalk 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Xkcd 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)xkcd

umm i think it should be changed yet again, a single panel of a larger comic is kind of dumb, tho i have no suggestions, maybe the first one if it wasn't so strange... but defintely a single panel one. XBCD ftw!!! --FranzSS 00:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a good reason to change it. The squirt gun comic currently on the page is fairly representative of the style of the comic and works fairly well on its own (and, as mentioned above, is readable). A single-panel comic probably won't fit in the infobox and be readable.   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 00:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Ref?

So the comic referencing "Wikipedian Protester"- does that merit a note in the article? 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring characters - Beret Guy?

Shouldn't Beret Guy be mentioned in the list of recurring characters? He appears in four comics for sure, and possibly a fifth one though he has no line in that comic. The four I'm referring to are [3], [4], [5], and [6]. The fifth one that he may be appearing in is [7]. Barrel Lad who is already mentioned in the Recurring Characters section only appears in five comics. Thought I'd bring it up and see if it was worth mentioning in the article. 216.142.120.204 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Hat Guy and Barrle Lad are both named, while "Beret Guy" isn't. And Hat guy and Barrel Lad share similarities from strip to strip, while Beret Guy isn't nearly as clear (although 209 and 167 both share a connection to an adventurous future), we don't actually know whether he's the same character. I'm really undecided, considering berets are uncommon, and I would personally guess its him. At the same time, we don't really have a reliable source that says either way, so I think it's best just to let it go for now, but be ready to add it in when we know for sure. --YbborTalk 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of recurring characters, am I the only one who (before I read this article) thought xkcd had 3 main characters: a guy, his girlfriend and his buddy? And then I came here today and it was like when I found out that every single Zelda game stars a different guy named Link, totally blew my world. --Unsigned

Possibly useful ref: [8] --Raijinili 05:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, looking at the four comics for the beret guy, he seems to consistently be the voice of "Enjoy your life!" or something else involving simple happiness. --Raijinili 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Nihilist is a recurring character. Only in [9] has the 'Nihilist' got a white top-hat - so I don't think his 'appearances' other than Nihilism count. (So I think we can lose the line about 'until recently, they always appeared together'. (forgot to sign in) No-genius 09:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never mind.

This comment was removed by its own author. Jesin 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Meet and Greet event

Anyone want to add info on the big mass fan gathering that happened in imitation of one of the comics? News source: [10]. Buspar 09:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a suprisingly neutral news source, for the internet. Approval! --Tar7arus 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double Image

The [citation needed] guy is on twice, with identical text. Whut. Tar7arus 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the first image, leaving the one in the "life imitates xkcd" section. For my part, I would prefer to leave the image off entirely, and don't really enjoy the change of the example comic. However, the change in the infobox comic is almost a necessity since Randall released that one (and only that one apparently) under a free license, and hence our hands are tied. I really hate how both the images used to illustrate this article are self-reference. It really gives the reader the wrong impression. Sure if Britannica were to reproduce a comic or real-life event, they would not find these pictures the most representative of xkcd. --YbborTalk 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC Channel

Noteworthy enough to mention in the article? Mentioned only in title-texts and the fora, but still prominent and comic 321 is a direct reference to a meme in the channel (there is an infobot, by name of Bucket, which, among other things, will echo a string with "eye" in it, replacing "eye" with "thigh". Questionable content has also used the "over-use-of-lions" idea in a comic strip. Tar7arus 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel isn't really notable. Atleast not in my opinion. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And for the record, I'm the one who wrote that eye/thigh module into the bot -- I did it at the same time that I came up with the comic. I just didn't post the comic for a long time, so everyone thinks of it as a reference to the bot. --Xkcd 21:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)xkcd

[edit] Notes from the author

I don't edit the article myself (see WP:COI) but I'm pretty sure I started scanning and posting these drawings in late September 2005, not May 2005 (and posted intermittently until Spring 2006, when I started the completely regular schedule).

And so long as I'm here mentioning things, I've never referred to the boy in the barrel as "Barrel Lad" -- that seems to have started in this article. I've called him "Barrel boy" or "The boy in the barrel". Minor detail, but it's funny how sometimes something can appear on Wikipedia, get referenced in other places, and then Wikipedia cites those other places as supporting references. Hooray Wikiality! --Xkcd 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)xkcd Someone on the forums referred to him as 'barrel lad', but I don't know which was first. 139.184.30.135 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading

I'm interested in reading the article, as I have seen other articles with "audio version!" available. What is the correct way to go about doing this? Tar7arus 14:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a wikiproject that makes spoken versions of articles, WP:SPOKEN. I believe you can make a request there for a recorded version of this article. Bhamv 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wet Riffs

Should some mention of Wetriffs.com (site probably not safe for work, FYI) be mentioned in here? As I understand the story, and someone who knows the subject better than I can correct me, the website was mentioned as a joke, and then created by Randall, and people have then submitted pictures for this site. I'm sure I'm all over the map on the story, but I hope I'm getting the idea across. Would mentioning it in the article here be worthwhile, since it got its start in the comic? Umbralcorax 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly notable outside the xkcd community. If it was made by a third-party in honour of the article perhaps, but because it isn't I wouldn't mention it. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But what is notable outside the xkcd community? The pictures were sent by third-parties, I don't understand the distinction.139.184.30.135 12:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it deserves a mention in the "Life Imitates xkcd" section. All other references in this section can be described as notable only to the xkcd community. --Antonio.sierra 13:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it can be considered life imitating XKCD when the site was registered by the creator of XKCD in expectation of this comic, and he solicited among the XKCD readers for pics. It's more a matter of XKCD artist following through on an idea he put forth in his comic.
If someone else had registered the site and created the content who had no official connection to the comic, then I think it'd be more relevant (like the XKCD Sept. meetup, which happened with no encouragement or effrot from Randall). Improbcat 13:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
True. I guess the name of the section doesn't apply to this specific situation. --Xer0 05:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear that any major third-party sources have taken interest in this, so I do not think it should be included. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baloon Prank

I'm not really seeing any form of confirmation that the Balloon Prank was inspired by xkcd. I've seen this prank done a million times, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with xkcd. Quadrius 17:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The source given mentions nothing of xkcd. I'm removing this. Subdolous 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Clinton

Without an explicit citation, I'm not convinced the George Clinton Wikipedia edits are definitely xkcd references or even notable. The "George Clinton has a BA in mathematics" urban legend appears to actually exist (whether or not this was started by the xkcd strip I don't know) and the edit could have been in good faith. Also, simply using an old Wikipedia page as the citation is not good enough. What would be even better is a reference to the urban legend actually existing, having been started after the xkcd strip suggested it. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the entry is currently worded doesn't suggest that xkcd was the origin of that particular legend, just that there's an xkcd strip about George Clinton having a math BA, so I'm ok with that part of it. However, I agree with you in that it's poorly cited, and its notability is questionable. On the whole, I wouldn't be unhappy with this entry's removal. Bhamv 10:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, my friend James and I are the origin of that urban legend, through xkcd. We used to joke with a third friend about how gullible she was, and made that up as one of our many stories to her. I would check any references to the legend -- unless they're dated from before late 2005, I don't think there's any reason to assume it existed before I started it. --Xkcd 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)xkcd

[edit] Weblog Award

Don't know if this would generally be considered significant -- though I suspect it is -- but xkcd won the 2007 "Best Comic Strip" category of the Weblog awards.


"2007 Weblog Awards"

Should there be a reference to that? Ltyore 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is significant. Lietk12 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- A. 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. But only a one-liner. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 04:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring characters

There are some characters who are based off real people Randall knows. I believe one was the math teacher. Or, wait, maybe she was the only one. --68.161.181.48 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof of correlation is not proof of causation. Randall knows a math teacher. There is a math teacher in at least one comic. There is not necessarily a causal link between the two ~ Tar7arus 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Life Imitates xkcd"

for this section can this link be added http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/11/19/growing-up/ Dylan2106 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC). I think it is appropriate since the ball pool strip is one of the comic's most famous. I'm sure that a lot of people have made their own ball pits, but this is acknowledged by the author as being inspired by xkcd --Dylan2106 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC) edit- also I have got rid of the quote marks for this section --Dylan2106 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear that any major third-party sources have taken interest in this, so I do not think it should be included. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the old long list about "life imitates xkcd" should be returned. I personally used to have this page as a reference to point my friends for good things about xkcd and a wider list would service this kind of archive much better. -Garo˙ 24 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.66.239 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I added one of them back just now, but the other ones from the old list were either poorly referenced or insignificant. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive self-sourcing

Please, please find discussion of this in independent secondary sources - as it stands, the entire thing appears to be written from personal evaluations of the comic itself, almost the entire thing is referenced to xkcd. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The main offender is the "themes" section - all of that information is in the first source cited, while the rest of the citations are specific examples proving that. The second main offender is the "reoccurring characters" section. I'm not sure that's the best way to do that, really... Kuronue | Talk 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I think, Randall should be denied any opinion on this topic since he is obviously not objective. --Maweki (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of something like 'is XKCD awesome,' maybe, but I really don't see any reason to keep the statements of the author from being considered sources on the themes of his own comic! -Toptomcat (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. This is not a literary review where a work is evaluated objectively; it is an article that explains the work. The foremost expert on a work is its author.
If there were any statements in the article that should not be sourced to Randall based on objectivity, they would be POV and should not be sourced to anyone, but removed. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Does the name have any meaning or significance? -- Beland (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

xkcd: About ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring themes

I just removed some themes that, in fact, only happened once. If I am mistaken feel free to re-add them.--85.17.170.17 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alt text for comic pane

First of all, I don't see that punchline in the referenced comic. Where is it from? Is it just a made-up explanation of the implicit punchline? If so, it should be removed on the grounds of being original research. Second of all, the alt text on the image doesn't work for everyone, for example for editors who use Popups. EAE (Holla!) 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean the tooltip text? That text is a tooltip in the comic as it appears on Munroe's website; all the comics have alt text addenda. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I see... I never noticed that before. I guess I have been missing out on that the whole time that I've been reading the comic.
Be that as it may, is the tooltip really necessary here? If anything needs clarification in this pane, it's who "she" is and how exactly she got existential. The parallel between the super-soaker and a cat-training squirt bottle is obvious. EAE (Holla!) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 404

... was my favourite computer science in-joke. --80.175.250.218 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)