User talk:TheHYPO

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi, I'm glad you'll have a look at it. Try using html comments. In some places whitespace won't cause problems, but it's sort of a trial and error process. better play it safe and use comments everywhere at first, then we can gradually try removing them. Also, take a look at the latest changes I made to {{ComicHeader}}. You could incorporate them in {{comic}} or simply transclude {{ComicHeader}} to reduce code clutter even further. Cheers, Waldir (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've ran out of time for explainxkcd today (I was moving some pages around). I will latter take a look at the template and see if I can improve anything. Just a note: the example usage seems to be categorizing the template page into the categories. I'm not sure having an example there is worth the miscategorization issues... --Waldir (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Didn't think of that - absolutely right on that point TheHYPO (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi there. I was looking through our templates and found {{wat}}. I'm not sure exactly what's the use case for that. Could you give me an example? --Waldir (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey; I don't know if it will be useful here; I duped both {{wat}} and {{w}} from another wiki I created here because I wanted to create a quick and easy (and standardized) link to Wikipedia articles (side note: I wonder if wikipedia links should have a little "W" logo like XKCD links have a little XKCD favicon?).

{{w}} creates a quick link to wikipedia to the article in the argument - second argument is the display text, just like a regular wikilink except to wikipedia instead of to the native explainxkcd wiki. A side usage is just putting in {w} bare, creates a link to the same article title at wikipedia appended with the phrase " at Wikipedia" (with a link to wikipedia). On the other wiki, this was generally used for "See Also:" links to articles at wikipedia where I didn't intend to have an article on that wiki itself. I created {{wat}} for when I wanted the "at wikipedia" form, but I had to retitle the article (eg: the article was "Hello" but the article at wikipedia was "Hello (common greeting)" so a plain {w} wouldn't work. Also, if I wanted to also link to the wikipedia article on "greetings" at wikipedia in the see also section.

I don't know if this will be of any use on this wiki (and if it's very uncommon use, the same functionality could probably be achieved with another argument (eg: {w|Hello (common greeting)|Hello|at=yes}) - as I used a see also section on many pages, it became useful to me. If you want to delete it here (or include the functionality into {{w}} I'm cool with that.

That said, I think "see also" could come in handy here, although generally people are just wikilinking to most relevant topics in the Explanation itself. There could be other topics that don't fit neatly into explanations though. TheHYPO (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's been a long time (sorry about that), but this period was also useful to put that template to the test of actual use. It seems it hasn't found much use here, so I'll convert the only instance of its application (Category:Velociraptors) to the {{w}} template, and delete the (somewhat awkwardly named, I must say) wat template. If the "at Wikipedia" form becomes common, we can, as you suggest, augment {{w}} with extra parameters. Cheers, Waldir (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


I like the idea you are going for, but it currently suffers from the image scaling issue. Or are you seeing properly scaled images? Blaisepascal (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving pages[edit]

Creating explanations and moving the page twice creates a double redirect. The List of all comics has links to both the title and number pages for each comics. I open both up in two tabs, and just paste, submit, close tab, paste, submit, close tab, no moving pages, and the redirects work. Thanks for your time and attention. lcarsos (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Time continues[edit]

I undid your edit to 1190: Time because it hasn't finished. I have, however, recovered your Plot. Mark Hurd (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind your edits, except they seem to have lost information, but some of it may have been redundant. I don't have time now to review it, though. Mark Hurd (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheHYPO, you did edit my add @Scene2: But I think: - they did not reach "another" river. It's the first river they ever found, all other images are showing the sea. - "Cueball slips in and loses his water bottle" <- We do not know that there is water in the bottle, it could be also limo, we don't know. I am not native English so I am happy about edits, but we still should be correct. --Dgbrt (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Please keep the explanation on top If you make the explanation too long then people can not find the explanation of the comic. Normally most explanations go by this formula:

  1. In one sentence give the purpose of the comic.
  2. Next give as little additional detail not stated in the comic as possible, sometimes none may exist.
  3. After that give an explanation of the comic itself, explaining how the additional detail fits in.
  4. Next point out the how the comic illuminates its purpose.
  5. Lastly do the above steps for the title text combining as many steps as possible.

This allows the reader to find the explanation quickly, and not get lost in the verbosity, which still adds value as they can get more information bellow if they wish. Also it helps them understand the joke wile giving as little information as possible as the less jokes are explained before you get it, the funnier they are. I hope this helps 21:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this codified anywhere on the site, or is this just your opinion? I have edited a good number of articles (far more than you based on your IP history) and in my view, the explanation should be in whatever order makes sense for each article. If the comic isn't going to make sense without know what the Star Wars reference is, that has to be explained first. Having the reader read a paragraph explaining the comic only to wonder what any of that paragraph means until they read the rest of it is silly.
This is not a 10-section, 50-paragraph article that would take half an hour to read. Readers are not so lazy that they can't skim a few short paragraphs. Unless there is some rule on this site about this, I disagree with your suggestion being a rule of how the explanation must read.
In any event, your reversion doesn't even accomplish what you say you want to accomplish. The explanation of the comic in your revert is in the fourth and second-last paragraph (title text in the last) so if someone wants to "quickly" find out what the comics about, they still have to read through your whole version to do it. You didn't put the explanation up front or anything. You just deleted useful background that might interest the reader. I would argue that most people who read this site aren't looking for a 2-second explanation. I think most users here are interested in more in-depth discussion and insight as to the meaning of the comic. You moved my "Star wars" background info to the end because it was not part of the comic, but you instead put the 2nd paragraph being comicon background info which again, isn't any more directly related to explaining the comic than what you moved. Your third paragraph explains the scene from Star Wars IV - which is exactly what my Star Wars Background section did, so just because I organized it properly into sections, you call it backwards - but you've kept it the same. At least in my edit, if someone is aware of the the star wars background, there's a section called "The Comic" that they can skip to and just read about the comic. In yours they still have to read the whole thing (even though they know it) to find out where the comic explanation starts.
In any event, reverting my edits was inappropriate. I edited the article for content including a) removing repeated content b) clearing up poorly written sections and c) adding further explanatory content. I will be reverting it back. If you still dispute my edits, it should be discussed in the article's discussion section. Thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)