This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I'd like to suggest the opposite: removal of characters section. Black Hat is the only one with some coverage, but that's so minimal that I can't say it's worth mentioning. xkcd-characters are not discussed by reliable sources at all, so why do we list them. That's pretty straight-forward original research, after all. ~Mable (chat) 18:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Why does the first sentence of the fourth paragraph state "From July 2012 to September 2015, there was a branch of xkcd titled What If?, which answered reader-submitted unusual science questions in a light-hearted but scientifically grounded way." There is a relatively new article on the What-If blog today (2016-01-12) which is definitely from within the last week. The reference cited at the end of that sentence is from 2014 and makes no mention of the blog having a defined end date. Although any casual observer could tell you that the posts to What-If? have become fewer and farther between, I'm unable to find any evidence anywhere stating explicitly that the blog has ended. I will be removing this detail sometime next week if there are no objections. Marcberm (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Oooh, there's a new one! Thanks :p Someone edited to say that the blog had ended, and no one contested it. I knew it was never officially states, it mostly just seemed like it... but for all intends and purposes, it was kinda true, though it should not have been put there without a source. Feel free to remove the end date ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 17:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed the end date and updated the tenses. --David Edgar (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I made the "past tense" edit to say that it had ended. I just came here to update it but found that it had already been fixed, thanks. Originally I made the edit, hoping to shame and annoy Randal into publishing another one, because I was annoyed that right after I bought the book, the blog ceased to be updated. This is what publicly editable encyclopedias are for right? Suggest reverting to my version if he lags for another three months before writing the next one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"Shaming and annoying" authors to do something isn't exactly what Wikipedia is for, no. That being said, for all intents and purposes, the blog seemed to have stopped updating. It wasn't exactly a controversial claim. I'm just happy it started again :p
I know, well put. glad also, thanks to whoever made the revert.
Seeing as Randall may be showing a somewhat inconsistent update schedule now, I recommend not changing the verbs to past tense again until a reliable or primary source states the blog really has stopped updating. Let's just follow the sources as usual. ~Mable (chat) 10:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
TBH, last time we edited the article to mention the date of the last whatif update, Randall resumed a sterling schedule for about a month. It's been lagging for three weeks again now. Motion to mention when the last update was made to the whatif section of the site. We can leave all the grammar as is and simply mention perhaps the number of posts to date and the date of the most recent one.22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Nah, let's just wait for a source. No reason to go for original research. ~Mable (chat) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
See, there you go, a new What If installment has been posted. For future reference - again - don't edit the article to state that What If is on hiatus or has ended until either Munroe has confirmed it or the World Wide Web gets brought down due to solar flares ~Mable (chat) 13:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It is in no way original research to make a note of the regularity of whatif updates based on information taken from the website (provided that the latest relevant information on this page is updated) I am adding the line: The Whatif feature on the site is updated with new articles from time to time and the last post *xxx* was made on *date*. The regularity of the comic book panel is noted, and the whatif panel should also be noted, particularly as the exietence of the whatif book draws a frequent number of new users. Edaham (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Nah. Reliable sources haven't taken notice of its irregular update schedule, so why should we? Also, why is this an issue for the article on the webcomic, but not the article on Munroe or the book? Should What If? be mentioned in this article at all? ~Mable (chat) 06:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 3 external links on Xkcd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: