Talk:Xkcd

New criticism section?

Because the xkcd critic community has grown to a considerable size, I think it deserves some mention on xkcd's Wikipedia page, perhaps in the form of a new section titled 'Criticism.' Some websites include:

• the "xkcd sucks" blog
• "xkcd explained," which satirizes xkcd's humor

I'm sure there are others, but I think xkcd's had enough praise by such figures as Google, YouTube, and Python, that it deserves to have its critics mentioned as well. Theta4 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this sentiment. In support of this I offer this Google Trends link. Also as per Wikipedia:Criticism, I suggest that the section be titled Reception and include both sides (perhaps merge in Awards and Recognition) in order to have a NPOV. I will bow out of any further discussion in this thread as I talked too much last time. --Capnchicken (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed, already shot down: Talk:Xkcd/Archive2#XKCD sucks website. Unless something new is brought to the discussion, I don't see the point. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the discussion in that link... (should I say, the points you made at the redirection link you have there) was about that blog, which misses the point of the discussion. While I may agree that the commonly referenced to blog, linked above, is not noteable enough to be placed within the XKCD article itself, adding a criticism section WITHOUT a link to the blog may well be suitable in itself. Note, Rjanag, that you've now had to address this discussion about the criticism of XKCD (and its community) one more then one occasion. Such is evidence to a growing mindset that is, again, not wholly backed by the blog itself. I simply make the point as even one wikipedia moderator felt compelled to write a .pdf article to the troubles of the XKCD community for how they affect wikipedia. (I can produce it if requested.) See the SkiFree article and its current XKCD culture reference tag thanks to a recent a comic. If a single comic is enough to endorse a tag on skifree, then what of this growing dissent to a growing community? Again, to reiterate the point that was brought up in the conversation you linked, the blog need not be in the XKCD article. Its the natural disdain for behaviors of a growing internet community.Patricoo (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

goatkcd discussion

Agreed, the article risks descending into fanboyism. Other entries allow criticism, why not xkcd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.179.129 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's from reliable sources and presented in an WP:NPOV, a Reception section is entirely valid. The edits purporting to be 'criticism' lately have not been well sourced, nor neutral. DP76764 (Talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, I posted a valid parody site which was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.179.129 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, not a valid source. Please review the policy for sourcing as well as external linking. DP76764 (Talk) 17:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted a real thing that exists, what exactly was the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.179.129 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First, critical reviews need to be sourced from reliable and notable sources. Second, please review the process for citing sources. Third, if you haven't, please review the criteria for external links. Just posting 'a real thing that exists' is not how Wikipedia works. There must be a point to what you're posting, and it can't be your own point and the point must presented neutrally (meaning including both criticism and praise together). Sort all those issues out and a Reception section will be an excellent addition to this article. DP76764 (Talk) 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

er... It was a parody site, not sure what needs explaining. So what I gather from this is that you can criticise xkcd, but you can only post criticism that the fanboys agree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.179.129 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You've gathered incorrectly then. And again, please refrain from attacking other editors; persistence with attacks can result in being blocked or banned from editing. If you want to add a parody site, it needs to be notable and you'll need a source discussing it and how it pertains to the main piece of work; otherwise it's either trivia or original research. Criticism sections aren't terribly hard to add; you just have to do it properly. DP76764 (Talk) 18:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that random criticism from random blogs is not encyclopedic. "Reception" sections cover criticism from noteworthy publications and people, not just anyone who can make a blog--it is already understood that everything gets criticism or praise from random nobodies like you and me, but all the belongs in the encyclopedia is criticism and praise published in reliable sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that criticism sections are terribly hard to add. They are judged based on the personal feelings of editors rather than actual merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.179.129 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a random blog, it was a pretty well known website, which would have been obvious if you had actually looked at the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.179.129 (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

All the reasons goatkcd has been removed have been explained above. And all the policies you need to understand to add to this article are linked (multiple times) above as well. If you'd like help writing a legitimate Reception section for this article, just ask (also, take a look here for a high quality example). Otherwise, this isn't really going anywhere anymore. DP76764 (Talk) 18:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

alt URLs

should there be a section on the alternative URLs the comic and forums are hosted at? Sorry, just got unblocked, still relearning th wiki policies.

alt. comic URLs:

xkcd.com xkcd.org cu.nniling.us

alt. forum URLs

fora.xkcd.com forums.xkcd.com forums3.xkcd.com echochamber.me

I don't see a reason to include any of them. Lots42 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

Do we really need the Facebook url? Facebook groups are created all the time. Lots42 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction when I saw that group on Facebook was to come here and add it to this page, because I thought it was relevant, as it is a fan-made reaction to one of xkcd's strips, and it is notable enough, in my opinion, as it gathered 58251 people (at the time of this message) in just a couple of days. Good thing I checked the page history and this talk page before I blindly added it, so I saw it was already here and it has been removed once. But yes, if it was for me, I'd keep it in. Nineko (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable, anyone can make a facebook group and it doesn't matter what arbitrary number of people joins it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I don't know guidelines very well, most of my edits are used to fix small typos in other articles... I rarely add things because I'm never sure what can be in and what should stay out. By the way, it's not the first time a facebook group gets on wikipedia: [1], maybe that one is wrong too so I helped :) Nineko (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty poor article, I wouldn't use it as a model. (Although, for what it's worth, this is a pretty poor article too.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New userbox

Greetings. I recently created a new xkcd-inspired userbox that someone else might be interested in using, too: {{User:ZeroOne/Userboxes/xkcd wrong}}:

xkcdThis user cannot go to bed when someone is wrong on the Internet.

—ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

xkcd iTunes Application

There is an iTUnes Appliction for xkcd that contains every one of the comics. The app. isn't written by the writer of the comics, but by someone else. Could this section be added to the article? xXSc3n1cXx 13:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)