explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination/Archive 2

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

This is an archive of past discussions about explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination and is kept for historical purposes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current discussion page.
 
 

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. Mushrooms (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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 hyperfrequent) 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 '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. 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. Asdf (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
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. 172.70.90.28 16:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Individual headings in Talk pages

Greetings, I have added a few Talk page comments, with unique headings, and I've noticed recently that some editors are going through those talk pages and deleting all headings, example 1; example 2, leaving the result quite unreadable and unsorted. Is there a "style guide" or documented consensus that headings are not permitted on Talk pages? Is this a standard across this entire Wiki that I should be aware of? Are there any other "style guides" or "manual of style" beyond the "Editing FAQ" that would inform these decisions? Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope. The same IP did both of those edits; I don't know why. I think headers are useful, and if someone adds one before their comment then it shouldn't be removed by someone else.
That IP has done a lot of what seems like good edits, starting three months ago, so assuming it's one person it doesn't seem like they're a vandal. -- Dtgriscom (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Addendum (to my following reply direct to Elizium, but this in response to Dtgriscom with whom I found myself Edit Conflicting):
If it was an IP (not me, I'm sure, but hard to prove that - and there's non-zero possibility of us even both sitting in the same small range of IPs), it's possible they've also been around for years and so honestly following the established 'unwritten rules' as much as any directive.
You'll also get 'established names' doing this, either knowing that it's more consistent this way or perhaps having been brow-beaten into this way of thinking by prior editors. (Either way, though, apparently thinking it's better this way.)
Now, though, I m going to go and check the exact examples that happened. You never know, I might have a completely different idea of whether or not it's vandalism (or just 'sloppy re-editing'), and have to interfere myself... ;) 82.132.244.8 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Addendum-to-addendum: Well, they were indeed an 82-block editor, like me (currently), but could have been 'closer' still (c.f. subnet/8 and subnet/24 coincidences!). Yeah, those two edits were benign, IMO, and aimed more towards page consistency with practically zero ill effects as far as readability. Discussion page conversations flit around like butterflies, labelling some of them (but not all) can be more confusing than just taking them as they are, really. 82.132.244.8 14:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
It's not universal (as I'm sure you'll notice), but ==title== headers (and especially =title= ones) have been historically discouraged for several reasons. One of which might have been the tendency to appear on the Explanation Page (or Main Page) TOC, due to being a transcluded part of them.
(That's why Explanations 'base' themselves with == level headers, to not confuse with the primary = level ones on the front page, and === level may have therefore been prefered in Discussion segments at one time or a other. Though there may currently be a NOTOC-type directive applied to stop that kind of 'header inheritance' anyway. I know there was some recent editing of the templates/whatever to do additional noinclude stuff at the Explanation/Discussion boundary, too, but I forget the full details without checking.)
Another is that unless the next person to append a new 'zero indent' topic also supplies an appropriately new header, they're either adding a 'continuation' to a sub-subject (that they may now not be talking about) or have to find the last comment before any header and add their throwaway no-header item in with the "not yet headered" initial run.
(Far simpler to just contextually have zero discussion headers and treat it as a chronological flat set of unrelated new comments. By root comment, that is; skipping later indented 'replies' apended after specific old comments. Not elegant, but readable.)
The most acceptable form of Discussion header, over the years, is to use a ";"-prefixed line (technically misusing the ";dictionary:definition" markup syntax). It gives what is basically a visual header-like prominance without any of the unwanted semantic functionality.
Some editors who edit away "==headers==" will perhaps convert them to ";headers". Other editors may make the Header+FollowingText into a 'cold open' of plain text, with only so much of the original Header (zero, some, all) being left as non-headed intro as seems necessary.
Broad examples of that latter are:
  • Useless header
Hiya!
I just want to say "First!" --signed
...becomes...
I just want to say "First!" --signed
...While not begrudging the 'first-tag', the header is even more throwaway
  • Cut-down header
The thing about dinosaurs - A few thoughts
While the velociraptor will [...]
...perhaps becomes...
The thing about dinosaurs is that, while the velociraptor will [...]
...a bit of artistic applied to keep the 'main' part of the header.
  • Full context header
The table should be as per <comic-link>
The reason being, that both are trying to display [...]
...becomes...
The table should be as per <comic-link>. The reason being, that both are trying to display [...]
...it's basically the first sentence of the contribution, and what comes after needs it to make any sense.
Not that there's a particular hard and fast rule to this (see the FAQ page for any 'expected standards' that are codified, or links onwards). The more general practice is that you let everyone say the words how they like, in Discssion sections (i.e. Talk:Comic pages), but others may well make the formatting more consistent with community expectations. If the community starts to expect headers (as they might already for long/complicated comics, or meta-aside 'post comic-comment commentaries', just not for most cases) or feel the need to otherwise (re)arrange things, someone might do it differently. (But it'd be undesirable to run through every prior Discussion section and try to reconstruct the headers that aren't/weren't there.)
From an inertial POV, yes "unique headings" might be accepted, but I don't recall any recent example where their loss/conversion has been more detrimental than the restoration of the standing headerless practice has made more consistent, sitewise. (YMMV!)
I also can't remember doing any of these 'prunings' myself, in very recent history (do recall some prunings happening... probably to your ones), but I've done my fair share and I know that I don't just throw them away without thinking. I'd always try to uphold the original author's (non-formatting) intent. And if I saw a less useful 'header decapitation' I might either improve how it's been done or revert it (perhaps semicoloning it, along the way) because it 'felt' right to have a header to me.
But this is a community of new-bugs and old-farts and plenty in-between (I'm certainly far more 'fart' than 'bug'), and I'm hoping to give you a little insight into what I know of this site's 'unwritten rules' on this subject. (Whatever the written ones might say! ;) )
A discussion of style is useful, of course. Whether the long standing editors will change (or the constant influx of newbies get it any more 'right' first time!) is another question. :p 82.132.244.8 14:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
My take is a) talk page formatting isn't a big deal, and b) reasonable comments by other users on talk pages (and I think those headers were such) shouldn't be edited or removed without a clear edit comment as to why. Otherwise you confuse and bemuse other editors. (And, we have bigger fish to fry.) -- Dtgriscom (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I have absolutely no objection to being bemused... ;) 82.132.244.8 15:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

226 has an undetermined character

It's either Blondie or Miss Lenhart, and I don't know which. Qwertyuiopfromdefly (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry! After the merge, Blondie IS Miss Lenhart. User:YZ100 00:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Confusing matricies transcript

Some of the comics in category confusing matrcies have tables as the transcript, which is i think not good accoridng to faq, sorry i cant help because i am on a kindle(the ebook(yes)) Aprilfoolsupdate!(talk) 11:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, this is DollarStoreBa’al. So sorry, I’ve been enjoying my summer vacation (editing from PDX right now, actually). Could somebody please de-protect my user page so that I can edit it? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alconverse 05:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)


This is an archive of past discussions about explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination and is kept for historical purposes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current discussion page.
 
 
Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/w/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination/Archive_2&oldid=412416"