explain xkcd:Explanation Improvement Project/Unsuccessful nominations

explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also the /Successful nominations.

This is an archive of past discussions about explain xkcd:Explanation Improvement Project 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.

 

Criteria

The Explanation Improvement Project is primarily focused on improving existing explanations while also helping create new editors. Ideal candidates for This Week's Explanation for Improvement are:

1. In need of significant improvement, with an extensive scope for expansion. Short explanations (view list of shortest explanations) are often the most ideal for improvement, but longer explanations also qualify if they fail to explain the joke and are written poorly. Good concise explanations about quick and straightforward jokes should remain short, so evaluate explanations on overall quality rather than length.

2. Accessible to a broad audience or otherwise ideal for new editors. The week-long collaborative format of this project (edit-a-thon) works best for comics about relatable topics. Explanations about niche or highly technical jokes, as well as those detailing the inner workings of the comic, usually belong in the general incomplete explanations backlog instead.

3. Old or out of date. While not required, an explanation is usually a good candidate if it predates the creation of this wiki or if it needs to be updated to reflect newly available information (such as future predictions coming true). Starting from the release of comic 1079 in 2012, new explanations were featured on the Main Page for several days and are generally higher-quality as a result. Particularly, recent comics from the last few years are almost never nominated.

Past unsuccessful nominations

2026

August 2026

April Fool's Comics are always a big task to handle and require a lot of work to fully explain (some of these are from a decade ago and aren't completely explained yet). tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)


The Spells section has a lot of busy work that doesn't seem too hard to explain. A week of concentrated collaborative effort should do the trick. tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)


THE BANE OF MY WIKI EDITING EXPERIENCE. I've always been frustrated by how sparse this article is and how many things were missing when I found it. I've uploaded quite a bit, but some are still missing and require some digging to find/explain (because I really suck at drawing connections and recognizing where the Loot come from...) tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)


Sort out the explanation structuring, explain further the delay of the comic, upload all pictures from [1], add a transcript for each image in the image gallery, explain the table of all notifications. tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment at the unixkcd nomination below. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)


I don't know how unix or linux or code or bash or anything like that at all. Please...I need help explaining this comic :C tori :3talk to me! 21:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! Unfortunately I think all of the five April Fools' explanations that you nominated don't meet the criteria #2 and #3, specifically the part about being "ideal for new editors" and interesting to explain. I think this sentences particularly applies: "The one-week edit-a-thon format of the project is well-suited for comics that cover everyday, normal topics. On the other hand, comics about obscure and deeply technical topics usually belong in the Incomplete explanations backlog instead." Essentially, this project is very focused on one specific goal precisely to avoid becoming a bloated mess like the Incomplete explanations backlog.
For example, the tasks you cited, such as explaining why a comic was released late or downloading and uploading images from the xkcd.com website, are not really interesting, which is why they've sat in the backlog for a decade. Most editors come here because they want to explain Randall's clever jokes. The Incomplete explanations backlog isn't monitored very often, but it is linked from every new explanation and the main page. If even all that "foot traffic" didn't result in meaningful improvements over so many years, I think it's unlikely that featuring those explanation from the sitenotice (which will mostly attract new and inexperienced editors) will do more harm than good. In the best case, there will be no significant improvements except from a few power users like us. In the worst case, it damages the reputation of this project as a means to update neglected explanations.
The Incomplete explanations backlog was a result of the failed Explanation Completion Project, aka Explanation of the Day. In my opinion, the project's goal was too broad and this led to it becoming less and less relevant over time, as the explanations became more and more similar to technical manuals of how a comic works. The last few explanations featured in the sitenotice were precisely this kind of pages and it didn't work. FaviFake (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I see how this works now. Shame on me for not reading through everything thoroughly...thanks for the feedback tori :3talk to me! 00:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
No worries! Putting my goal into words helped me understand them better as well. I've marked the explanations you mentioned as incomplete per this nominations and moved your suggestions there. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete (fails criteria #2 and #3) per my comment above FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)


September 2026

Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

This explanation would be a perfect candidate if it weren't about a complex topic, imo. I think it doesn't satisfy criterion #2 and it should probably be marked as {{incomplete}}. FaviFake (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete as the explanation remains too technical and should use simpler terms. FaviFake (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)


It doesn't explain why the lines don't line up.. Velocifyer (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. This explanation seems pretty thorough. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 00:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
I think I get what they're trying to say. They don't understand why there's a 25-year gap between the two lines. I guess that gap usually represents the time it takes for something to cause effects (e.g., if people start smoking today, they will start dying only 30 years from now). The explanation is not written in simple terms and I can see why one could get confused: it glazes over the main point and instead uses some weird sentences like the scientific research community, which often prides itself on its intellectual aptitude, is gently mocked for being nonetheless prone to such poor reasoning all too often.
I'm not sure if this specifically qualifies for This Week's Explanation for Improvement based on the #criteria, but at the same time I think it could be improved and streamlined a bit. But what do you think? FaviFake (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, it could use some copyediting. Perhaps mark as incomplete, with bullet points Explain why there is a gap between the two lines and Clean up the article so its tone is more accessible? 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 01:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Good idea! FaviFake (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
 Nomination unsuccessful but marked as incomplete as it fails criterion #1 but is still poorly written. FaviFake (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about explain xkcd:Explanation Improvement Project 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.