explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2384: Set in the Present

2020-12-28T13:22:17Z

Edheldil:

Although I've described the TV as being wall-mounted, a literal reading of the scenario is that it and Cueball are both floating in a featureless void (which has covid). [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 02:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I just say this is ''so'' true... GOOMHR! Anything even vaguely archival (repeats or first-runs of shows recorded before ~Marchish 2020) that don't have a prominent "This was recorded prior to..." announcement look... strange. Unsettling, even. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 02:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
:Just out of curiosity (because I mainly watch older stuff): are there any current, contemporarily-set shows that were filmed during COVID and where actors have (or have not) started wearing masks?
: I think if I were a producer, I would simply add masks to the show in situations where people would wear them in real life, even if the script was written before COVID. You wouldn`t even have to mention it in the show. Would make it more realistic, safer for the actors, and would acknowledge that COVID is simply a reality in 2020.
:: Really ''really'' [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53936399 contemporary productions] have famously made various concessions to make 'reality' film safely (not sure what they did about masks to film a 'safe reality', I don't watch that stuff myself). Anything that can be delayed seems to have been delayed, though, so we're yet to see 'new normal' pop up, and anything mid-shoot will likely start again with precautionary but pre-mask arrangements rather than reshoot the old shots to include face-coverings. It's going to be interesting to see what signs creep in (like radio dramas where clearly they Zoomed it in, just one character sounds like they're under a duvet, or ought to have been). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.128|162.158.159.128]] 11:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Like this? [https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/13432140276-laska-v-case-korony/ Láska v čase korony]? [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 13:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Transcript has a typo for the year: " Is this story set in 2049?" should read " Is this story set in 2019?"[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.247|162.158.166.247]] 09:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
:Easily changed. Done! ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.128|162.158.159.128]] 11:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Reminded me of this tweet thread from @qntm in June ("do you feel like in the past six months all contemporary fiction became period fiction"): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1275909147729551360.html [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 00:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not affected. In movies I'm watching, missing covid is NOT the most fantastic element. (Also, there is enough CGI that filming each real character separately won't change the movie production much.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with including masks etc. in productions is that it dates the movie/show precisely and makes it *about* COVID (qv.: chechovs gun) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.100|162.158.92.100]] 00:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You're just a bit ahead of the scheduling vs recording of TV-shows. I've seen in this week alone at least four shows where Covid-19 is a major player and everyone has masks... is this the late autumn-winter season of TV? :S --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.84|162.158.134.84]] 00:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
: Wikipedia doesn't have a "COVID-19 in popular culture" page yet, but I bet it will by the end of the year. I considered starting one myself but material is still kind of thin. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 17:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1323: Protocol

2014-01-31T10:31:16Z

Edheldil:

This is funny. I was really drawn into the conversation due to the names. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 07:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:Me too! And I'm even more drawn to the meta-conversation!! :) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
::But what about me? Alice and Bob get way too much time already.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob Carol (whisper) 13:30 29 January 2014 (UTC)]
Eve appears in [[177: Alice and Bob]] --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I was immediately reminded of the movie, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064100/ I wonder if that movie influenced the encryption names, or vice versa, or mere coincidence?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 12:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the explanation looks complete to me. I vote to remove the tag. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed then. There was someone who asked for more [[Cryptography]] comic references. I found 14 and have thus made a new category (see link below). Feel free to add more if I have not found them all by searching on Cryptography and Encryption (I have only included those where there were some direct mention of these issues in the commic - or title text) and not just because there was mention of it in the explanation. However, the words does not have to appear in the commic before I included them. i.e. [[PGP]]. But also feel free to delete one from the list if I was too quick to include it [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The description misses a key aspect of the comic. The conversation follows the pattern of a message being sent from Cueball to the Computer Scientist, with the CS sending an acknowledgement back and Cueball continuing --- much in the matter of an internet communication protocol, as referenced in the title. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Really excellent explanation. Complete, concise and well written, with some helpful notes in the comments. Keep up the good work! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree this would explain the protocol title, but how does it compute with the message at the bottom: ''I've discovered a way to get computer scientists to listen to any boring story''? [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:The point is that Cueball tells a completely mundane and booooring! story (might be last evening's soap opera, for example), but by replacing the protagonist names with Alice, Bob and Eve, names commonly used in explanation of public key cryptography, he tricked the Computer Scientist into believing he describes some cryptography protocol, thus making him interested. [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
::By the way, what Cueball describes might very well be DNS cache poisoning -- or what NSA's supposed FOXACID servers do. [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the essence of this story is in the encryption aspect, not the TCP. Many protocols feature a message-and-reply type of structure, it's not unique to TCP. The alternative to having CS reply to each phrase is to have him not reply to each phrase, which would be boring and not really indicate what's going on in CS's head. As some cryptography problems can be complex they are sometimes stated in "chunks" so people can follow along [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_cryptographers_problem more easily] (See the Description section of the link). In trying to follow what might be a complex problem sometimes people will acknowledge that they understand each part in turn - weather for their own benefit or that of the problem stater. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:Found it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier Bruce Schneier], a notable modern Cryptographer has published a number of cryptography books in which he routinely references characters such as Alice, Bob, and Eve. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]])
:Also: TCP/IP doesn't necessarily ack every packet, it can also ack multiple packets in one go. This allows for a much larger throughput as the latency per packet goes down to zero. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1323: Protocol

2014-01-31T10:22:54Z

Edheldil:

This is funny. I was really drawn into the conversation due to the names. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 07:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:Me too! And I'm even more drawn to the meta-conversation!! :) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
::But what about me? Alice and Bob get way too much time already.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob Carol (whisper) 13:30 29 January 2014 (UTC)]
Eve appears in [[177: Alice and Bob]] --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I was immediately reminded of the movie, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064100/ I wonder if that movie influenced the encryption names, or vice versa, or mere coincidence?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 12:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the explanation looks complete to me. I vote to remove the tag. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed then. There was someone who asked for more [[Cryptography]] comic references. I found 14 and have thus made a new category (see link below). Feel free to add more if I have not found them all by searching on Cryptography and Encryption (I have only included those where there were some direct mention of these issues in the commic - or title text) and not just because there was mention of it in the explanation. However, the words does not have to appear in the commic before I included them. i.e. [[PGP]]. But also feel free to delete one from the list if I was too quick to include it [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The description misses a key aspect of the comic. The conversation follows the pattern of a message being sent from Cueball to the Computer Scientist, with the CS sending an acknowledgement back and Cueball continuing --- much in the matter of an internet communication protocol, as referenced in the title. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Really excellent explanation. Complete, concise and well written, with some helpful notes in the comments. Keep up the good work! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree this would explain the protocol title, but how does it compute with the message at the bottom: ''I've discovered a way to get computer scientists to listen to any boring story''? [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:The point is that Cueball tells a completely mundane and booooring! story (might be last evening's soap opera, for example), but by replacing the protagonist names with Alice, Bob and Eve, names commonly used in explanation of public key cryptography, he tricked the Computer Scientist into believing he describes some cryptography protocol, thus making him interested. [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the essence of this story is in the encryption aspect, not the TCP. Many protocols feature a message-and-reply type of structure, it's not unique to TCP. The alternative to having CS reply to each phrase is to have him not reply to each phrase, which would be boring and not really indicate what's going on in CS's head. As some cryptography problems can be complex they are sometimes stated in "chunks" so people can follow along [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_cryptographers_problem more easily] (See the Description section of the link). In trying to follow what might be a complex problem sometimes people will acknowledge that they understand each part in turn - weather for their own benefit or that of the problem stater. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:Found it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier Bruce Schneier], a notable modern Cryptographer has published a number of cryptography books in which he routinely references characters such as Alice, Bob, and Eve. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]])
:Also: TCP/IP doesn't necessarily ack every packet, it can also ack multiple packets in one go. This allows for a much larger throughput as the latency per packet goes down to zero. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1163: Debugger

2013-01-21T10:59:23Z

Edheldil: Added a relevant joke

Isn't this also a reference to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem halting problem]? [[User:DonGoat|DonGoat]] ([[User talk:DonGoat|talk]]) 08:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

:It may be, but it isn't an INSTANCE of halting problem. You can understand how something work without being able to predict what exactly it will do. The problem may be also related to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems Gödel's incompleteness theorems], which basically states that any nontrivial theory cannot be proven consistent and complete in itself. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also reminiscent of a joke: ''"I was saying to myself that a brain is truly a wondrous creation with its complexity and power. And then I realized '''who''' is saying that to me."'' -- [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1113: Killed in Action

2012-09-26T10:25:58Z

Edheldil:

The title text is essentially the beginning of the hanging paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
:It's not quite the same thing. The unexpected hanging paradox only applies when you have a measure of foreknowledge. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 05:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's also a strong indication that this is mocking cop films from the 80's/90's, such as Lethal Weapon, where a character would always die just before retirement.
--[[Special:Contributions/46.246.31.111|46.246.31.111]] 07:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This one is a variant of the old Czech joke: "The study has proved that statistically the most casualties happen in the last car of a train. Therefore the committee suggests to make all trains one car shorter." --[[User:Mity|Mity]] ([[User talk:Mity|talk]]) 09:59, 26 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 for all the use cases and examples. [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1113: Killed in Action

2012-09-26T10:25:07Z

Edheldil:

The title text is essentially the beginning of the hanging paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
:It's not quite the same thing. The unexpected hanging paradox only applies when you have a measure of foreknowledge. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 05:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's also a strong indication that this is mocking cop films from the 80's/90's, such as Lethal Weapon, where a character would always die just before retirement.
--[[Special:Contributions/46.246.31.111|46.246.31.111]] 07:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This one is a variant of the old Czech joke: "The study has proved that statistically the most casualties happen in the last car of a train. Therefore the committee suggests to make all trains one car shorter." --[[User:Mity|Mity]] ([[User talk:Mity|talk]]) 09:59, 26 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 for all the use cases and examples[[User:edheldil|Edheldil]] 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

2012-09-26T10:22:05Z

Edheldil: /* Discussion of latest comic */

{{notice|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.--[[User:Relic|Relic]] ([[User talk: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. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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.--[[User:Relic|Relic]] ([[User talk: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. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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? --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 08:11, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::They are two different functions. For the former, instead of adding <nowiki>[[Category:Comics]]</nowiki>, add, say, <nowiki>[[Category:Comics|1]]</nowiki>. 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? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 08:54, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Here's what I was thinking of for that: {{tl|Comics navbox}} Thoughts? ''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]
:(outdent) It's ugly, but a sortable wikitable [[User:SurturZ/sandbox|(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:")? --[[User:SurturZ|SurturZ]] ([[User talk: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 <big>[[Explain XKCD:Checklist]]</big> which can be used to fill in the gaps. --[[User:SurturZ|SurturZ]] ([[User talk: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 {{tl|Comics navbox}} was on the right track or should we do something else for that? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 20:09, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Better idea - I'm throwing it directly onto the Main Page. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 20:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Admin list==
You can find a system-accurate list of admins [{{canonicalurl:Special:ListUsers|group=sysop}} here], so that might good to share, along with the manual list. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 07:13, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
:Added to page. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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? --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk: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? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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? --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk: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. :-) --[[User:Yirba|Yirba]] ([[User talk: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. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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.
[[User:Christopher Foxx|- CFoxx]] ([[User talk:Christopher Foxx|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. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk: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. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk: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. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Christopher Foxx|- CFoxx]] ([[User talk:Christopher Foxx|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. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 16:36, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

You can transclude the latest comic on the main page like this: <nowiki>{{:pagename}} e.g. {{:Internal_monologue}} </nowiki>--[[User:SurturZ|SurturZ]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk: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"...
[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 14:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
:Good points. I've done both. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Zootle|Zootle]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 18:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
::Rather than "Go to this comic" maybe it could be "Go to full explanation" ? Something else? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 13:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
::There was [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests#.22Edit_this_explanation.22_link_on_main_page 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. --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 13:03, 8 September 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. [[User:Carewolf|Carewolf]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:edheldil|Edheldil]] 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)