explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination

explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Proposals  •  Technical  •  Coordination  •  Admin requests  •  Miscellaneous  •  All

 Create a new topic!      Refresh


Coordination

Page for coordinating community-wide tasks among the explain xkcd wiki members, such as the creation of new categories, the layout of explanations, and maintaining a consistent writing style. Create a new topic!


This page has archives. Discussions are usually archived after they have remained inactive for a long time or they are no longer relevant.
 
 

File sizes[edit]

Latest comment: 15 May 20242 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, just noticed that a lot of the older xkcd comic files, especially the ones done by hand back when DgbrtBOT and TheusafBOT created yet, are all ___.png, while nowadays TheusafBOT uploads ___-2x.png files. Should we change the old files and make them all 2x, or should we just keep it like that? 42.book.addict (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO (for what it's worth), leave them as they are. Anybody really wanting the _2x version (where they exist, as they haven't all got them) can grab them from the source site.
It's actually a bit wasteful to upload the _2x and constrict them to display at non-2x sizes (and not to restrict them will often cause Explain-page misrendering that needs resolving again), but it was a fairly recent choice made by Theusaf to change their 'bot to upload the _2x rather than the long-term practice of the 'standard' size. Regularising everything would be require one image upload and (at least!) one page-source change to handle the change and I can think of just one maybe good reason to do so, vs. several fairly reasonable reasons not to bother.
On balance, it'd be a thankless task, and probably create problems for other people. I know that, if you think you have time to do it, you might take this as a challenge... but I honestly think it's not worth it. Let TheusafBOF do its thing (and Theusaf, or others, intervene when it hits a new odd exception that breaks its purposeful current uploading policy) and leave the old stuff alone. Until, and unless, there's a legitimate reason to update individual comic images (e.g. Randall posted corrections; like prompted a recent re-upload, though that needed redoing anyway..!). 172.69.194.95 21:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possible new "superheroes" category[edit]

Latest comment: 5 August16 comments11 people in discussion

i don't edit this wiki very often, but i recently decided to make a "superheroes" category since i was surprised we didn't have one already. i've been going thru the archives and adding comics, but today i noticed a bunch of the edits were reverted by one person with the reason "no such category". do i need to do something to get the category approved or were the reversions incorrect? 216.145.71.130 21:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

As the reverter, I'm suggesting that the way this is normally done is to notice the need and suggest that it is created, listing (at least some of) the cases.
While anyone with page-creation capabilities (not you, and not me) can "unredlink" the category, it'd be useful to make sure it's not just being created because of one person's vague moment of inspiration.
Not to say that you're unjustified, in this case, just that you hadn't gone any way to try to justify it. And it's better to do that. (The old phrase "better to ask forgiveness than permission" isn't really applicable here.) I'll happily help repopulate the new category, if and when it is decided to get created. Just it was being done the wrong way round.
Someone else mentioned that its name might need rethinking, and that's one of the aspects. Yes, it can be renamed, but still much better to be right to start with.
So I think it should be open to discussion... enough to convince someone else to make it a valid category, then start adding them back in again.
If I've picked them all up, BTW, I think the following are your candidates:
...so, along with any other finds, if it looks like we need Category:Comics containing superheroes (or similar) then your existing work hasn't gone to waste. 81.179.199.253 21:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
for archiving's sake, there's also 273: Electromagnetic Spectrum, 1415: Ballooning, and 1434: Where Do Birds Go.
1434: Where Do Birds Go has nothing to do with-- Oh, sorry! the title text mentions it. I have added where the superhero shows up in the list. Again, sorry! 14231423 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
So, I agree that 1415: Ballooning and 1434: Where Do Birds Go have superheros and should be added but 273: Electromagnetic Spectrum should not, there is no superhero as far as I can see. I have not removed it from the list if I am incorrect. 14231423 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
it would be nice to have character pages for specific superheroes like superman and batman (and, evidently, etymology-man), but "superheroes" in general is a topic, not a character. as for the name, it's in line with categories like Category:Aliens, Category:Demons, and Category:Sysadmins which are plural and don't start with "comics featuring". we do have Category:Comics featuring children, but it seems like an oddball to me (maybe because it's more of a meta-category for the characters page than one intended for casual browsing? dunno.)
should we continue discussing this here, on the character page talk, or somewhere else? i must admit i don't understand the organization. 216.145.71.130 22:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
The wiki can be a bit inconsistent, because it's been going for a while and not everyone has gone with the same 'house style' (which may have changed over time, too). We have Category:Comics with babies, for example, and also Category:Comics with cursed items. While there are various "Category:Comics featuring <named characters, both real and fictional>", which would have more suited Etymology Man and could (if we so wish) serve for Batman, Superman, etc, individually.
I'm actually fairly ambivalent, but I think that it should at least have other voices agree on which way it all goes. Saves too much after-the-fact 'corrections'. But you don't want to be talking just to me about this, so I'll shut up now, and await some of the 'big hitter' accounts to weigh it all up. It doesn't need to be done right now. A couple more hours, at least... ;)81.179.199.253 22:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Responding to 216.145.71.130 I think thatCategory:Comics featuring children is named like that because children does not end in a s like superheros 14231423 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
no response about where to talk about this yet, so i'm just going to loop the other comment in here. changing the name to be more indicative as well. 64.189.140.8 07:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a nice category to me. FaviFake (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Seems quite relevant to me. Don't really see an issue with using the category name "superheroes" tori :3talk to me! 16:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
here's the remaining ones i picked up:
151.141.68.154 19:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
since there's been no further comments i went ahead and remade the category. if anyone with permissions can un-redlink it that'd be nice. 64.189.140.61 00:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You didn't "remake the category" because, as you say, they're redlinked until someone has sufficient reason to unredlink them. That's not the way we do things here, as explained, or else anyone could do something like Category:64.189.140.61 likes creating categories and expect it to be created without any consideration of need.
I'm not opposed to the category, in principle, but the only reason I'm not (re-)reverting all those pre-emptive new redlinks is because it's too much effort right now. Which is not the best reason for failing to uphold such practical standards. Well intentioned as you are (and I don't know why nobody else supported you by instating it 'properly'), some here may see your approach as akin to vandalism. 82.132.237.108 10:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I, unlike OP, have done quite a bit more preparatory work for the potential category.
See all the following edits:
*663: Sagan-Man, 700: Complexion, 980: Money, 1004: Batman, 1010: Etymology-Man, 1012: Wrong Superhero, 1384: Krypton, 1394: Superm*n, 1415: Ballooning, 1434: Where Do Birds Go, 1648: Famous Duos, 1792: Bird/Plane/Superman, 1848: Glacial Erratic, 1904: Research Risks, 1970: Name Dominoes, 2230: Versus Bracket, 2367: Masks, 2396: Wonder Woman 1984, 3146: Fantastic Four and Category:Etymology-Man
Note that I have done three things:
  1. Chosen the Category:Comics featuring Superheroes variation, to match (among other more individually-aimed ones) the category name used in Category:Comics featuring major characters‏‎, Category:Comics featuring minor characters‏‎, Category:Comics featuring politicians and Category:Comics featuring real people‏‎. Consider this my official and reasoned suggestion for what the Category should be named. Subject to any further discussion on this matter (before implementation).
    • Yes, there are other inconsistencies to this. But then I'd also argue that Category:Etymology-Man really should have echoed the standard that resulted in Category:Comics featuring Kidball, too, as well the same (more historically or not) for Knit Cap, Cueball, Little Bobby Tables, etc.
  2. I've added a 'category sort index' word, for grouping in the eventual automatic category listing. This is an optional extra, and I used "multiple" for those comics that weren't (easily) just one individual Superhero, but listed those that were involved in the next thing I did. If you prefer normal comic (or category) name-order, you could remove this pipe-option. Or, ideally, cut'n'paste it into any post-category comment just for editor referencing.
  3. I have (where it seemed necessary, which is most of the time) added an apprioriate editor-'comment' after the category. Because I can't use HTML comments within HTML comments, I've rendered these with "(!-- .. --)" surrounds, which need fixing to use </> instead once the current commented-proposal surround is removed.
    • Note, im particular one of them... 1904: Research Risks, I think it was... where the comment made was that I don't think it qualified for Superhero, as it only references the concept of a Supervillain.
i.e. each (commented) placeholder should be easy to make into whatever (uncommented) implementation is agreed upon.
Now, please, OP and everyone else, do not just revert (or otherwise apply) a currently non-existent category 'in the hope' that it's correct and someone with an account will just unredlink it for you as a 'done deal'. Even if I were an account-holder (of suitable, no onerous, vintage) I would not just 'make it happen' without at least some proper discussion. Can't speak for what named-users might do, off their own backs, naturally. My opinion (informed or otherwise) doesn't have any particular weight, and it's still possible I can't persuade anyone (who matters) to adopt all of my own suggestions. 81.179.199.253 20:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
two account-holders said they approved of the idea. if this isn't proper discussion, what do you want me to do?
also, aside from flukes like Category:Comics with cursed items (which should be changed imo), the "comics featuring" name is just to avoid clashing with character pages: for instance, we named it Category:Comics featuring real people because Category:Real people was taken. "Superheroes" isn't taken; we don't have any character pages for superheroes in the first place. Category:Etymology-Man is a miniseries category, not a character category. (it has the same comics as a character category would have, granted, but it's not treated like one in any way -- hence the name!) 64.189.140.56 04:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Speaking for myself, I respect both Favi and tori's opinions, and I'm even (generally) in favour of this category. But nobody who can make it so that it isn't redlinking (simple enough... by now, even you could have done it, entirely on your own) has done so.
My (and others', it looks like) point has always been that it has for a long time been a fairly matter of fact process to announce "hey, I think this, this and this should be made to have that Category", some minor discussion occur, refinements/additions considered, then it gets done. If it doesn't, it's because of lack of buy-in and nobody was convinced.
Some things still might get done far too hastily/improperly (various Category inconsistencies are 'obvious') and the Pages To Delete tags get rolled out (where page-renaming isn't sufficient), but Deletions are even rarer than Renames (in part because of the rights required to do so), and both are outweighed by the creation of instances of what might just be considered as 'personal pet project pages' by some. That way lies indefinite expansion and random 'forgotten' stubs left all over the place, so if I have one personally overriding attitude to this whole thing, it's that of caution. I'd rather remove a redlink (otyer than abset User and User Talk ones in signatures) than let it temptingly sit there inviting the next near-newbie to create it 'because they can' (as demonstrably happens with the User/User Talk ones, anyway), regardless
(I haven't yet even decided upon my own username that I might use, after maybe more than a decade contributing here, which probably tells you more about me than anything else. Can't speak for others still posting via IP, like yourself.)
This is not me 'pulling rank', I must add. I have no 'rank' to pull, by my own decision. I'm just a random IP (as are you/any others not named yet) who just tries to do my best to do what limited things I can do to make this site operate smoothly. It was supposed to be a simple explanation of the established community convention that has tended to work well enough, and was never supposed to become 'IP-vs-IP combat', and I really hope still isn't, despite our clearly conflicting drives on how to reach the same sort of 'final' ideal (minor details varying). And I've had my own fair share of "wouldn't it be nice to have <some feature>?" not going anywhere, which I live with because this isn't 'my' site but a community one. (A strange community, naturally, but one of the better ones, out of all those I dabble in.)
That's the long-winded reply only here to try to explain (my, at least) previous long-winded replies. I'll leave the whole "Comics featuring" stuff undiscussed (save that, by consistency, yes, if Etymology-Man had enough appearances to merit a character page, some rearranging probably wouldn't go amiss to do the same as "Cueball"!="... featuring Cueball", etc). It's not a full on "386: Duty Calls"-type scenario, but I thought it worth a 'quick' last note as to where I'm coming from. It wasn't supposed to be this long! Sorry for wasting everyone's time, though. Even the like-minded ones? 82.132.237.17 14:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

New series/category: "Obvious analysis results"/"Genetic testing"[edit]

Latest comment: 6 August1 comment1 person in discussion

I was looking through the doctor Ponytail comics and noticed that at least 4 comics have a really similar premise and ending:

They start with Cueball being analysed or genetically tested, and they all end with an obvious result. Could this be a new main Comic series (especially the last three), or maybe a new category like Category:Genetic testing? Comic series sets out these criteria for considering a series of comics:

All comic series are intentionally created by Randall as part of a series. This is usually inferred from sequential numbers in the titles (such as in Stargazing), similar patterns in the comics' titles (as in xkcd Phones) or captions (Cursed Connectors), release dates purposefully deviating from the normal schedule (Journal), a partnership with other artists (Guest Week) or companies (A Smarter Planet), or Randall bundling certain related comics in one page (The Boy and his Barrel).

Also, there are likely many more comics following a similar pattern. Could you list any that you find so we can decide what to call this new category/series? FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

New category: Alcohol[edit]

Latest comment: 6 August1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose a new category for comics on topic of alcohol and alcohol consumption (beer, wine, vodka, etc.), which should be a subcategory of Category:Food.

Proposed members (alcohol in comic):

Optional members (alcohol in title text):

Optional members (only state of being drunk is mentioned):

The list above is probably not complete. 37.31.42.127 18:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/w/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination&oldid=412419"