Talk:Xkcd

Another Inspired Activity?

http://www.thebookofbiff.com/2008/12/09/651-moore/

Article Has Too Much Insignificant Info

It has come to my attention that this article has far too many statements and points that are very minor or completely unnecessary, with the end result being that a relatively small amount of text is about the general comic and the article being beefed up to sizes far larger than it should be (which is also why people have been demanding a Criticism section despite not being significant enough to warrant proper commentary from news sources). A few examples: -Much of the initial paragraph has non-general points that do not apply to the comic as a whole (such as "the comic occasionally features landscapes, intricate mathematical patterns such as fractals (for example, strip #17 "What If" shows an Apollonian gasket), or imitations of the style of other cartoonists (as during "Parody Week").") -Half of the Characters listed have appeared in approximately 1% of the comic strips. Additionally, characters such as "Megan" and "the nihilist" have no characteristics at all beyond their name and personality respectively, and are practically indistinguishable from minor characters. -Many of the Inspired Activities are likewise highly minor. The chess set one has only been done by a handful of unnotable individuals, the Geohashing one has no references stating its popularity, and one board of 4chan being temporary renamed is certainly not a notable accomplishment. MechPlasma (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But how did this come to your attention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.201.209 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Through... reading it? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. MechPlasma (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau

Can we at least try to get a general consensus as to whether or not a point can be made in the xkcd article regarding this word, then worry about adding changing the Malamanteau article to a redirect?

The precedent:

• Kwyjibo redirects to the page about the Simpsons episode where it was first created.
• Cromulent redirects to a subsection of the article for the Simpsons episode in which it was created.
• Words that don't exist, such as Muggle from the Harry Potter fictional universe have pages of their own.
• How many words created by Tolkien or George Lucas or Lewis Carroll have redirects to somewhere for the page of the LOTR books or Star Wars articles or Alice in Wonderland articles respectively, if not pages of their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathsythe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument for:

• Many a user and commenter has wound up on Wikipedia looking for answers regarding the word. When searching Google, one of the first results is the wiki page (it shows up before the comic in question itself!)
• The controversy that has stirred because of it has led to discussions outside of wikipedia. Not to mention the talk page that is orders of magnitude larger than the proposed article itself.

I propose a simple plan:

Have at minimum, a bullet point under Xkcd#Inspired activities, if not a section itself, surrounding the word and the controversy. While the word itself might not be notable enough for its own article, the events surrounding it certainly have gained enough attention to make mention of them in this article.

A start for a small section has been created as a subpage here. Feel free to edit or discuss this futher please.
-Deathsythe (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The "controversy" was just made up by a bunch of xkcd fanboys. It's not like Wikipedia itself is in any sort of uproar about this; the only people in an uproar are the hordes of IPs and SPAs showing up here and complaining. The fact that something gets discussed on internet forums by random nobodies is in no way notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please try to Assume good faith and avoid phrasings like "idiotic fanboys". -Deathsythe (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, nowhere did I say "poisoning" or "idiot fanboys". Not sure what you're talking about. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

i copy and pasted the assume good faith comment from elsewhere and forgot to edit out the bit about poisoning. Also I could have sworn that your comment read "idiot fanboys" not "xkcd fanboys" so you will have to forgive me. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it really that important? RJFJR (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the previous precedents set, it is just as important as words from JRR Tolkein, George Lucas, Matt Groening, Lewis Carroll, and JK Rowling. If not, then we have a lot more pages to delete. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These are words that are used widely, have become widely known, and have existed for more than a day. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've failed to understand what that precedent actually is. The Simpsons is the most popular animated series in the history of the world. Books have been written analysing Tolkien's constructed worlds and languages. This is a webcomic which came out yesterday morning. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The principle is still the same though. Those words were made up as well were they not? Also - I am not trying to bring into question or argue the legitimacy or notability of Malamanteau, I am bringing to light details that would allow the word itself, even sans controversy, a bullet point or section in the xkcd article. I really do not think that is reaching, or asking too much. - Deathsythe (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Even sans controversy"? So you think that it would be appropriate to add mention of this comic in the article, without talking about even the paltry impact that you think it has had? What would it be—"In May 2010, xkcd had this comic?" Should this article include a bullet point for every xkcd comic that has been created? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well by that logic not every comic, but the ones that refernce wikipedia should have some kind of mention. If not here than at minimum Wikipedia#In popular culture. The controversy and dispute that raged on after the comic's publishing, as well as the shenanigans that ensued afterwards make it all the more notable and deserving at least a little mention, that's all. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit wars are not notable unless they're the subject of coverage in reliable sources (not blogs and forums). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fancy that I just found one. And I know you did not insinuate it, but I feel the need to clarify; I am not trying to entice, or participate in, an edit war of any kind. I just love the internet meta-culture and the influence that it has when it permeates out of the geek's inner circles and mainstreams, and via that would like to see the inclusion and documentation of this "word". -Deathsythe (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more than a passing mention, and in a non-notable column rather than a news article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Being a native Long Islander, perhaps I am a little biased, but where I'm from LIP does have a pretty large readerbase. Also - it is an independent newspaper, which last I checked qualified it for WP:RS, and subsequently qualified it for point 2 of Wikipedia:XKCD#How_to_tell_the_difference. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's an extremely informal "chat"-type article drawn from the blog section of the website, and what's more the "reference" is one throwaway line in the middle of an otherwise unrelated discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just how NbtN reads, its stylized more like a blog than a column in a paper. Brad Pareso, the author tries really hard toappeal to a younger readerbase, but I digress. Now I did see a "'yes'" in there, albeit ever so slightly... so... what can we do about that?
Also Unrelated, but how many :'s can we do before we crash monobook?) -Deathsythe (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I already said multiple times that notability can only be established by substantial coverage in reliable sources. Passing mention (how many more times do I need to say it? passing mention) is not substantial coverage. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Does a full article about it in the boston globe count yet? 216.37.52.133 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Lots of people would like for Wikipedia to be a canonical documentation of this kind of thing on the Web, but it's not what we're here for. Encyclopedia Dramatica has this as its express purpose, on the other hand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I like to hold Wikipedia in a little higher regard than ED, juuuust a little. (sarcasm obviously) - something like this isn't from the cesspool of the internet, it was from a widely popular geek comic. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Google News returns quite a few news results on it, so I cited two of them and added the bullet point. WP:BOLD and all. --Zarel (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BOLD doesn't work when there's already an argument about whether or not to include the material. See WP:BRD.

Did you actually read any of the Google News results you found? First of all, it returns 5 unique pages, not 15 (the rest are duplicates). Secondly, most of them say nothing at all about any "controversy". For instance, this does nothing but copy-and-paste the Urban Dictionary entry; no mention of Wikipedia whatsoever. This just talks about the definition of the word; again, no mention of Wikipedia or controversy. Same goes for this (the slashdot blog posting you mentioned, which claimed this talked about some "controversy", was incorrect--obviously that person hadn't actually read the piece). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Slashdot poster didn't read the article he cited - that's clear, and it's why I didn't cite that article - but the facts - that the Wikipedia article was created and deleted - are perfectly true.

The Urban Dictionary entry mentions Wikipedia, so I'm sure the others do by extension. I didn't mention any controversy (since there wasn't any - just that a Wikipedia article was created and deleted) in the bullet point I added, so your "controversy" argument is a straw man.

Lastly, the bar for notability of a sentence is far lower than the bar for notability of an entire article. Slashdot and Long Island Press are not exactly dismissible with a wave of the hand.

You seem like the only person who thinks this does not even deserve a sentence (which, for the record, was all I added). I'll stand down and wait out this "controversy", but I don't believe there's all that much. --Zarel (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would venture that the Long Island Press reference nudges this over the edge into notability, at least enough to warrant a redirect and a mention here. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is the XKCD fans or the anti-XKCD fans that are the worse problem; either would suffice to be a disruption. Pointing them both at the same proposed link is a guaranteed mess. A redirect to a line in the XKCD article which links to the page should suffice, taking fewer than a thousand bytes even in Unicode. Those who happen upon the word -- where ever they do -- and are curious can find it, those who object to the word have minimized its presence (deleting it will merely result in recreations, and if salted, demands to know why and requests for the removal.) Mr. Monroe's joke has escaped his control; perhaps he'll learn from that. The fans and anti-fans, I don't have so much hope for. htom (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unicode? What does Unicode have anything to do with this? Do you know what you're talking about? rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Unicode Transformation Format was meant? --  ClosedEyesSeeing  (Speak) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the number of bits in ASCII vs. the number of bits in, say, UTF-32, thinking that 250 ASCII characters would suffice for the redirect and the link, and expanding that by a factor of four. htom (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

All building of bike sheds is forbidden, no matter the color or location, or ownership of the land. If we cannot come to unanimous agreement on each detail of every bike shed everywhere, no bike sheds may be built. 71.197.253.136 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My only question is whether this would be better served in the Wikipedia in culture discussions as the entire debacle has brought attention to Wiki's policies and policing outside of the Wikidom. While it's certainly worth mentioning on the xkcd page, I'm not sure that it's a "inspired activity". Yes, someone took it upon themselves to make a page which was then summarily deleted. Is that an "inspired activity"? That would be my only concern about including it here rather than just referencing the Wikipedia in culture section. Bdevoe (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought Zarel's addition to the article was fine. Just saying, to add weight to that side of the discussion here. Whether you like it or not, it's better to have a cited mention of it in this article than deal with constant random searchers insisting on adding it, making it more notable as "something Wikipedia refused to admit into an article" and thereby making it something Wikipedia would have to admit! Donama (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, you can't just ignore an event that has currently spawned 133,000 Google hits & hundreds of comments on the discussion page, on the basis that it's not "encyclopedic", or "not notable". You're just going to keep the discussion going for longer, and generate more references to it. Just add an entry acknowledging the buzz that the word has generated. Just add an entry under "Inspired Activities" and move on 202.20.20.202 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

133,000? You have an interesting way of counting. Also (apparently this needs to repeated over and over again forever), Google hit counts don't prove that something needs an article. In fact, indiscriminate numbers rarely do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And you have an interesting way of miscontruing. I didn't say that there should be a Wikipedia article on malamantaeu. I didn't say that the word was notable. I didn't say suggest that Google hits makes something notable. I said that the interest/activity/buzz that the comic created is real, and offered the Google hits as evidence of that. (I'm interested to know the alternative measure. If there were an article in a reptutable news source that mentioned the amount of activity, would that make it more real?) I said that this interest should be acknowledged in the Inspired Activities section of the XKCD entry. Because it is activity inspired by the comic. I'm sorry, I can't explain it more simply for you. Now reading about 134,000 hits 02:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.202 (talk)

Doesn't matter. For judging how big a "buzz" this is I wouldn't trust Google results any further than I could throw them. Even Google News, which is supposed to turn up more reputable things, in this case is turning up all kinds of junk like blog posts from people who don't know what they're talking about and spammy domain squatters. Not exactly the cream of the crop as far as sources go. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point. You seem to agree that there are hundreds of thousands of unreputable sources discussing the word. The important phrase there isn't "unreputable". It's "hundreds of thousands". The simple fact that all these sources are writing about it seems to be prima facie evidence of "buzz". But to be honest, I don't really care enough to argue further. The debate will no doubt evolve in its own way, and at the end of it, something may or may not end up in Wikipedia. What bugs me more is the lack of critical thinking or rational debate. Meh. 202.20.20.202 (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont know about Rjanag, but I certainly dont believe there are "hundreds of thousands" of sources. I'd say a few dozen at most ... if you page through the results of the Google search, youll find that it stops at about 500 hits (up from 300 early yesterday morning), and within those 300 hits there is a lot of duplication and a lot of spam sites that don't actually have anything to do with xkcd or the word. —Soap— 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, in case it's not obvious... there are a lot of people watching this discussion (albeit with a smirk on their collective faces), and that in itself is notable. Wikipedia really exists in the real world, and can create notoriety simply through discussion. That you are still arguing tends to suggest that this word is now notable enough for a two line bullet point at least. Sheesh. Additionally, (as Deathsythe pointed out at the top of this section) the word Kwyjibo redirects not to The Simpsons, but to the full length page for the episode in which the word featured. Why are people even arguing over this when there is there a full length article on every single Simpsons episode ever? 131.172.4.45 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because, as has been previously stressed, The Simpsons is orders of magnitude more widely covered by reliable secondary sources, of which there are thousands for practically everything ever covered in that show. There is absolutely no comparison to this webcomic, which is two days old and hasn't received any non-trivial coverage outside of the kind of places which cover xkcd as a course of habit. The only reason this is even being brought up is that the self-selected nature of Wikipedia's editorship means that there are far more people on here whose primary experience of the outside world is through their Web browsers than in the population as a whole. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with this edit

• A comic "Malamanteau" (591) about a nonexistent Wikipedia article named Malamanteau prompted a Wikipedia discussion over whether the comic was notable enough to merit an article about the word.

It was well put together and refernced by a non-user contributed website (read:digg/reddit/slashdot). Also worth note, not that GHITS has been used to determine notability in a long time, but searching for "Wikipedia Malamanteau" returns "About 70,500 results". We do not need to debate the use of WP:NN for a single sentence do we? It is a mere bullet point in an article, not an entire article itself. Notability applies to whole articles, not redirects, nor bullet points within articles. I move that we keep that edit, and make Malamanteau a redirect to that bullet point. It should satisfy all sides, and then maybe we can put this whole business to rest and work on more important articles instead of continuing these shenanigans. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently we need to keep debating WP:NN until people actually bother reading it. A one-sentence mention on a blog/commentary section of a newspaper website is not sufficient to count as a reliable source, and WP:GHITS does not become a valid appeal simply because one wishes for it to be so. The problem with allowing this one little bit of trivia is that xkcd does this all the time, and this article already suffers from being a mere aggregation of trivia that isn't interesting to anyone except xkcd readers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I made specific mention to that GHITS isn't used to determine notability, but merely to point it out to any naysayers who claim that it is only appearing on a dozen or so websites. Just because the line in question doesn't appear intersting to one group doesn't mean it isn't interesting to others, and should not be the basis for it not being included within the article. I really don't understand the logic of all of the naysayers. First they claim it needs to be noted on a 3rd party website, so we find several. That soon becomes "not good enough", why does the critera keep changing? We've established that WP:NN doesn't apply to redirects. The fact that we are still debating this days later, and still in the same basic level of heat, just goes to show that it is obviously noteworthy. Notability isn't something that can always be quantified. All of those who are hard with the rules need to understand that a little better. I am all for strict inrepretation of things like the Constitution, and laws, but adding a sentence to an article about a comic that references wikipedia itself really isnt serious business. I think far too many naysayers have trouble coming to terms with that fact.

My grandparents think that whether or not Lady Gaga is a man or a woman is interesting in the slightest, but that doesn't mean that it should be kept off of wikipedia. Sacrificing the freedom of information, regardless of how trivial or inane it may seem to some, is not wikipedia's motive nor intention, but it seems to be the intention of an unfortunate majority of its userbase.-Deathsythe (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a test case for the First Amendment. That "unfortunate majority" you're referring to is typically known as the consensus position. Constantly trying to attack the credibility of those opposed to the edit on grounds like "it's not important" or "there are better things to do" undermines your own position because each of these arguments applies to both sides. If you think this is a tiresome debate, it's because we've all had it at great length hundreds or thousands of times already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The will of the majority is not always correct. When the dissenting opinions are still prevelant and still providing concise, logical, and compromising solutions instead of simply laying down the black and white heavy hand like the "unfortunate majority" it is worth debating and worth that "majority" holding a mirror to itself and question their own motives and reasons. There are a lot of fanboys and anti-fanboys involved in this argument. I am neither, and personally despise both parties. I am continuing this debate on principle. I believe there is a bias within the majority opinion, but I have not chosen to attack that, as it is more of a strawman argument at best. The argument that "there are better things to do" does apply to both sides, you are correct. I have gone about my usual routine on wikipedia unhindered because of these debates, as most have I am sure, but there is certainly a good number of people who are seemingly making this debate their life's work for some reason, and the majority of them are on the anti-xkcd side it seems.

Given the third party mention and references, the fact that WP:NN does not apply to redirects, the ridiculous amount of controversy, stir, and uproar that this whole thing has caused, as well as the precedent set forth by previous examples (whether they are better documented or not is not what we are discussing here, the mere fact that they are allowed to exist is enough) - there really is no reason that we cannot have a single sentence, with a <ref> tag supporting it (albeit deemed a weak one). Thanks for indenting my 2nd paragraph there btw. -Deathsythe (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all very well to characterise onesself as an impartial observer who just happens to have a better grasp of Wikipedia's policies and precedent than all those partisan people, but you've failed to adequately respond to the challenges made to any of your assertions. Now that you're just repeating yourself, I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That little signoff was rude and unecessary thumper. I've been nothing but civil throughout all of these proceedings, and did not deserve that quip. Pleasantries aside, I disagree. A consensus has still yet to be reached. At least I have been trying to bend and offer solutions to the matter that involve comprimise and hopefully will keep all parties happy. All I can say about the "unfortunate majority" (though I do question as far as actual numbers go how much of a real majority it is) has done is hide behind cryptic interpretations of wikipedia policies and throw their weight around regarding protecting pages and undo'ing constructive edits. -Deathsythe (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof rests with those seeking to add content to an article; if something you add to an article is challenged, you should not add it back in unless you can get consensus to do so on the talk page of the article (or the person who reverted it fails to respond). —Soap— 16:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the "majority" refuse to add even a sentence about this is false. I have yet to see anyone other than you (Chris) and Rjanag who oppose this. --Zarel (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article history suggests otherwise, but regardless I was simply echoing Deathsythe's phrasing. It needn't be a majority anyway, because consensus is not decided by a head count. That multiple editors in good standing have reverted the addition of such material suggests that there is at least some backing for opposition to it in our content guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are citing WP:N as your only reason for refusing this edit. Well, let us read the last paragraph of the lede: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." In the future, please try to cite policy that actually applies. Does my edit break NPOV? V? OR? NOT? BLP? I seriously doubt it does, and so the burden of proof is upon you to cite policy that actually applies. --Zarel (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's that "directly" thing that matters here, though. If notability simply were not a concern at all when it came to article content then articles would be jam-packed with any trivia that could be referenced. In this case, that no reliable sources have covered the incident strongly suggests that it doesn't actually aid the reader in understanding the subject. Articles on fictional content should still assign due weight to material as it affects the subject's place in the world. Right now this article does a terrible job at that, and that would only be worsened by adding even more material of a trivial nature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear, you may be correct. We should look to revise policy and establish notability guidelines for article content! In the meantime, let's not cite WP:N as if it actually backs up your position, and work on things such as building consensus. So now that neither of our positions can be furthered by Wikilawyering, can we discuss whether or not the sentence deserves to be added on its own merits?

Perhaps the xkcd article shouldn't have an "Inspired activities" section, but it does. And unless and until it is removed, I see no reason not to improve it while it exists.

Now, the malamanteau article deletion, although minor, has clearly received more attention than many of the other entries there, such as `M-x butterfly`, and it seems clear to me that it deserves an entry and a one-sentence mention, and, disregarding whether or not such a list should be present, such an entry would improve the list. Do you agree? --Zarel (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No. If the article is full of low-quality trivia already, then the solution is to remove it rather than adding to it. This is not a new discussion, and novel interpretations of the current wording of guideline X are not likely to sway many editors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, why haven't you removed it in the what I'm sure is at least a few years of it being there? Why wait until right when a new addition is being proposed? Okay, so I can accept that you may not have noticed all the cruft, but why not delete it now? Go ahead; I won't stop you.

And if you're not willing to delete it entirely, why not improve it? Why should older "cruft" (by your standards, not mine) be given greater precedence than newer and more notable "cruft"? --Zarel (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I remember the first time Rjanag tried to cite Wikipedia policy on the Google test, and he linked to WP:GOOGLE, which is WikiProject Google, not a policy page. I also notice that much of what either of you say directly contradicts the first sentence of WP:N. I encourage both of you to read the policy pages that you cite (except WP:GOOGLE), as they are well-written and contain reasonable discussions of both how and why the policies are in place. In addition, I encourage you not to WP:BITE users who mention Google results - although by themselves they do not establish notability, they still provide information that can assist in a discussion of inclusion - see WP:GOOGLETEST. Thanks. :) --Zarel (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Being condescending is not helping your argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well. forgive me for sincerely trying to suggest some advice. And I mean that in the literal, WP:AGF sense of "forgive". There may be many legitimate criticisms of my tone, but since "friendly" and "condescending" can be effectively indistinguishable, there's not much I can do about your perception of them. I could try adding "I'm not being condescending", but I fear that would be condescending. For instance, take the previous sentence - I meant it completely sincerely, but it's not difficult to read it as if it were condescending, and there's not much I can do about that. --Zarel (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zarel, the only reason WP:GOOGLE linked to WikiProject Google (an inactive and unknown project) is because a disruptive user changed the redirect to promote his project. WP:GOOGLE is a widely-used redirect for WP:Search engine test. But that is immaterial. Or are you trying to gain the upper hand in an argument by making your opponent look bad rather than addressing the actual points? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you for that information. I am not trying to ad hominem anyone, but simply suggest some relevant pages worth reading. --Zarel (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this does not need to degrade into schoolyard antics. We are all perfectly mature adults, and have been doing a fair job of expressing ourselves as such so far, lets try to keep it that way. (CIVIL, AGF, and all that jazz).
Chris, you are one of the most vocal, and prominent dissenting opinions, however that doesn't mean that yours is the only opinion, nor does it give it any more merit than that of myself or others. There is a good number of editors who think to the contrary, and I would like to cite again that that camp has at least made an effort to appease the anti-camp by proposing several viable solutions that are well within the barrage of WP:Policies that the anti-camp have been throwing at us. The anti-camp hides behind WP:N, and is constantly finding new creative ways to apply it to suit their arguments and deny the other camp even a single sentence/bullet point, but has yet to provide a single viable solution short of deleting it and effectively banning any/all xkcd references from wikipedia. Don't you think that that is a little absurd? The discussion on Talk:Malamanteau is a cesspool right now. There are several good points being made, but one cannot filter through the rest of the spam, vandalism, fanboys, and anti-fanboy hate to get to it. At least here we have been able to have a clear and concise discission, albeit we are butting heads pretty hard atm. -Deathsythe (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If the hyperbole in the middle of that paragraph was intended to be a civil characterisation of your opponents' arguments then there's nothing new to respond to. At present, the best references are a Slashdot post (I've seen 800+ comment threads on Slashdot about me before) and a one-sentence line in a newspaper site's Web column. That compares unfavourably to anything else currently covered in that section with the possible exception of the Emacs easter egg. That's really the be-all and end-all of the debate right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 4chan one has no sources at all, and the antigravity one only cites a commit log entry. The geohashing entry only cites an xkcd wiki entry (and I'll note an xkcd wiki entry exists for malamanteaux as well). So yes, if by "anything else" you mean "five out of the ten entries", then sure.

I doubt you've actually seen 800+ comment threads about you, considering the most-commented Slashdot articles about Wikipedia get in the 500s range... None of posts mentioning you seem particularly controversial, either. (And the four mentioning Chris Cunningham aren't even talking about you.) --Zarel (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubt away, seeing as I can't find a link either, but it was for Slashdot's response to Bugzilla #303806 (the menu bar styling change for Firefox 2). It did indeed get 800 comments. Anyway, yeah, I was a little sanguine in my appraisal of the existing content; I'd be fine with nuking the poorly-spurced half. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I admit to being somewhat of an inclusionist, so it pains me to say you're probably right that the right thing to do is to nuke the poorly-sourced half. I still think "Malamanteau" belongs in the other half. ;) --Zarel (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey folks, I thought this thread began quite reasonably but it's begun to degrade ("I had over" "I doubt" "Doubt away"). *sigh* I think Deathsythe's proposed solution has a lot of merit. I don't think that the arguments against it are particularly compelling. Adding the information now doesn't preclude it from being cleaned up/relocated later when someone with some bandwidth shows up to clean up the page. Mark it appropriately and move on. Otherwise, we're getting close to simply being obstructionist. Bdevoe (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people don't think that a complete lack of reliable sourcing should preclude the inclusion of trivia in Wikipedia articles. This does not make them right, nor those who oppose them "obstructionist". Would that people would stop insinuation that parties who disagree with them are being deliberately disruptive. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't see anything wrong with "Doubt away" - I thought it was a perfectly polite way to say "I cannot provide proof of this claim, so I understand if you don't believe it fully" (and this interpretation is corroborated by the subsequent clarification). In fact, the way it was worded makes me inclined to believe him. --Zarel (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the proper notability evaluation criterion for this edit are the Events criteria. Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Background seems an approximation of the arguments of the keep and delete camps. That guideline's Breaking news section warns that WP is not a crystal ball and recommends "that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." It would appear, then, that adding a line to this article to encapsulate and reference the Malamanteau event is entirely compatible with notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.112.6 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not an "event" in any way. You are making quite a stretch there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I find no definition of "event" in the cited reference, so I take it at its bare, English, face value -- "any observable occurrence" (Event). -- 66.103.112.6 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we change the section header to be more inclusive then? Like "Spillover"? I say this because malamanteau is now a redirect to here and there should be some explanation why that is the case at this article, however brief and simple, and wherever it is put. Huw Powell (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

guess it's useless to talk to you wikipedians considering that wikipedia has a page named List_of_problems_solved_by_MacGyver -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.50.41 (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're completely right. It's useless to talk to wikipedians about things that they disagree with. Guess what? No reliable news source has ever covered any of the random words that Tolkien came up with, but it's relevant because they used to like to pretend to be Frodo as children (and probably still do). Other made up crap is all over wikipedia, xkcd has a readership of millions, that means it's relevant to millions of people. I can definitely point to articles that have made up crap from other literary sources with smaller fanbases. The difference here is the preexisting animosity towards XKCD's fanbase. This at the very minimum bares mention in the xkcd article because it actually made the news http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/05/13/nothing-but-net-the-net-at-10-a-m/ and because it created this sort of buzz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.84.77 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look in the archives of this talk page you can find that many of us whom you are now accusing of being hostile towards xkcd fans are the same people who have often been accused of being the core of the fan base itself, and of being too quick to delete content that criticizes or embarrasses xkcd fans. I think the commonality is that we are not pro- or anti- xkcd, but simply very careful about respecting the guidelines that tell us what content should and should not be added to the article. —Soap— 15:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is really sad to see that the List_of_problems_solved_by_MacGyver page - or in fact any page having nothing to do with all this - was deleted solely to back up certain arguements of the stupid malamanteau debate. Not the way Wikipedia should operate, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.72.67 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? That page was removed in 2008, long before this silly debate started. What are you talking about? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the majority of anon traffic on here is coming via digg, slashdot et cetera. I wouldn't expect a higher ratio of "expressing an opinion" to "having actually read the article" than on any of those sites. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure anyone who heard Sarah Palin's latest creation, "Refudiate" instantly thought of malamanteau 128.2.51.144 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, and I've been following this whole tempest in a teapot since it started. Huw Powell (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know much about wikipedia, you can probably figure that out because I'm probably doing this wrong. I'm just some guy trying to use the internet. I was having a discussion with someone about how new words can come into being and I wanted to look up malamanteau. well i guess if you type right into the address bar of my browser it is like clicking "i'm feeling lucky" in google and takes me directly to a page that deliberately does not contain that word. This is the first result on google and quotes a sentence which cannot be found here. this is not just about wikipedia, you guys are making google worse too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.104.141 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

malamanteau under a ccbysa licence

Just for information, I had asked to Randall Munroe by mail if he could release the malamanteau page under a wikipedia compatible licence, I got his answer today: "but I've added a note to the Malamanteau comic's page releasing it under a cc-by-sa license." The file was already on Commons, I just had to fix the licence, so it can be used in an article now. The file is here esby (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

footnote 12 (We're looking at each other, and it's not a pretty sight) and 13... any more?

The link is here. It has nothing to do with xkcd, so obviously doesn't support the two sentences it footnotes. I now assume that all of wikipedia is like this and will purge my brain of everything I've learned here. </joke> But seriously, did the target of the link move or something?

While I'm at it, the next footnote is gibberish, and goes to a page that has nothing to do with xkcd. Has this article been vandalized that heavily? Huw Powell (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 12 is talking about xkcd's "Map of the Internet" comic, so it seems to be correct. No comment on 13 ... Highbeam is a paid site, I believe, and I dont have access. What paying users see may not be the same as the rest of us. —Soap— 02:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. For some reason I didn't scroll all the way down, or ctrl-F "xkcd". It's still not that great of a footnote, but it does say what the article says. Huw Powell (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

12 seems a little weak in terms of supporting the claim it's attached to. The claim is "caught the attention of many". This is merely one place making note of it; that doesn't really support the statement that many places have made note. A better source for that statement should be found. In terms of #13, paid sites are generally not preferred for sources, so that one should be replaced as well. DP76764 (Talk) 02:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd disagree with that; the source says "The strip's author ... recently made a splash by drawing the Web in geographic form". "Made a splash" can quite readily be seen in this context to mean "had some popular impact". I'm all for the removal of inappropriate weasel words here, but this looks to be an appropriate rephrasing of what the source says. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think that that source is dubious; exactly where the splash was made is not elaborated on. It could be just referring to a certain community or site (or perhaps just within the offices of that source). Surely we can find another source for this if it did indeed make such a notable splash? DP76764 (Talk) 15:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. It's certainly at the lower boundaries of what I'd consider an acceptable source, though it's a lot better than the 70+ "references" we have which are just links to comic strips. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Why does this comic deserve an article? It seems at least one other webcomic lost its article due to being disliked (but disguised as a lack of notability). Therefore, for the sake of uniformity, I would like to ask how this webcomic is notable, and why should this article be allowed to exist? I will likely be going through a few webcomic pages and asking the same question. Alchemistmerlin (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Try substantial coverage in reliable sources [1][2][3][4]. If you are upset about some article you like getting deleted or some such, I suggest you try WP:Deletion review rather than looking for revenge elsewhere. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "looking for revenge", seeing as I distinctly dislike the comic in question and enjoy XKCD quite a lot. I'm simply trying to see some consistency here. Alchemistmerlin (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The "consistency" you're talking about is referred to around here as the "what about X?" argument. We do not typically define notability by subject matter, such as "all webcomics are notable" or "all companies with over a hundred employees are notable". We treat them on a case-by-case basis as verified by the presence of reliable secondary sources (the general notability guideline) or by applying some common heuristics which are likely to mean that such coverage exists somewhere (specific sub-guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE). In this case, xkcd has indisputably seen significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources and has had an established real-world impact which has been noted in such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The xkcd article meets WP:V, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability. The article cites over 10 reliable sources that mention XKCD. Notability is easy to establish. In addition, the article is fairly well written and well-sourced; It would not be a legitimate candidate for deletion by any measure. --Mysidia (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hat Guy?

Well, I found a transcript looking at the page source of "Actuarial" (#493) and it mentions "Hat Guy" in there too. Just a heads-up.

Newwikiprofile001 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)