# Talk:Time (xkcd)

I've gone and italicized the several instances of this strip's name (Time) in the article, but I'm not sure whether italics are correct. If you view this comic as an episodic short piece of a greater work, it would follow that quotes are more appropriate ("Time") as are customary for television episodes. If it's looked at as a short film, however, then italics would be better suited. I'm not sure. Thoughts? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone has removed the overlong plot tag. I find it hard to really see how anyone can argue that the plot summary in this article is not overly long but hey. I would point to WP:CMOS#PLOT (which this plot summary breaches on several grounds including the lack of reference to critical sources), WP:PLOT ("Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary") and Wikipedia:Plot_summaries (again, original research and lack of sources as well as the fact that this plot summary is not 'reasonably concise' in itself or relative to the rest of the article). I am therefore reinstating the tag.--KorruskiTalk 08:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of obscure languages on this list, I think that the language used in this comic is notable enough to have its own article. There is a reliable source here. But if an article is created, what title should it have? Randall has not given it a name. "Beanish" is a name fans use but doesn't seem like an appropriate title for an article that will be read by general readers. The alternatives like "Constructed language used in xkcd" are very clumsy, however. 86.156.247.142 (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To appear on that list, the language itself needs to be notable, and I think you will struggle to demonstrate the notability of this one. You may be right that there are other non-notable languages on the list, but the correct way to deal with that is to remove them, not to add more.--KorruskiTalk 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You would be hard-pressed to prove notability for the language alone, apart from the comic. As it stands now, this article would easily pass an AFD, but your proposed article lacks necessary coverage. Unless you have some sources we don't know about. Elizium23 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth changeing 'the man' and 'the woman' to Cueball and Megan? Although Randall doesn't actually name his characters, these are their de-facto names. Agentgonzo (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Given what we know now, they would be Cueball's and Megan's great^n descendants? htom (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't synthesize information from other sources, especially talk pages and other wikis. There is no de juro link between the characters and any names; "Megan" and "Cueball" are fan-made names anyways. Deadbeef 13:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? I know Wikipedia users love xkcd, but this is taking it too far. This series of strips really doesn't need its own article, especially when there are various other websites devoted to it already. It only barely passes WP:GNG, if at all (the plot summary is certainly disproportionate to its significance), and I sincerely doubt it will demonstrate any lasting notability. As there was a merge discussion not long ago, which failed (see above), I won't start a new one just yet; but I look forward to taking this page to AFD in future. Robofish (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd be wasting your time (and everybody else's) -- there are easily enough sources here to merit a "keep" at AFD. Besides, the consensus against a merge was pretty conclusive. 86.128.6.225 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it won one of the 2014 Hugo Awards, so I was clearly wrong about 'lasting notability'! I agree now that this article should be kept, and withdraw my snarky comments above. Robofish (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There are currently 16 references, 8 of those are to blog posts on large websites (Geekwagon, Wired, BoingBoing, etc.). The other 8 are the original comic, Randall's blogpost, a mirror of all the frames, etc. Therefore, I think there's enough references to remove the notability banner on top of the article. Rchard2scout (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it.  It was added with the rationale that "more than 50% of references are self-published", but that's not how notability works.  That might be cause for a ref improve tag, but if a subject's notability is established with reliable sources, it doesn't matter what percentage of the sources are "self-published", that is not and never has been how notability works.  - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So, while the comic is #1190, it is technically the 1189th comic (since /404/ is an error page), except that it kind of is the 1190th since Randall (assuming the G+ post is actually from him) says that /404/ is an avant-garde, "real" comic. I have no strong opinion on the matter, just that the article should strive to be accurate and explain the discrepancy, real or perceived. Chris857 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think calling it #1190 is fine, but I guess 1189 makes sense too. Either way is fine. πr2 (t • c) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Time (xkcd)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Will review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

General
No copyvio/dablink/external link issues
The prose reads very well and complies with the MOS. Good job!
Lead
Mind adding who Randall is?
What kind of information exactly needs to be added? xkcd is his most well-known work. I could say something along the lines of "Time" is the 1,190th strip of cartoonist Randall Munroe's webcomic xkcd," but that seems more like added clutter than additional information, as "cartoonist" is implied. ~Mable (chat) 12:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Plot
Perhaps you should place a citation at the end of each para so that it does not attract cn tags
I'm not sure what the point would be besides cluttering. I could refer to specific pages, but that wouldn't really make the section any less original research. ~Mable (chat) 13:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Backstory and development
In an interview with Rolling Stone,...something "in between" I feel this is somehow at the very base of the comic, so perhaps it should come earlier in the para.
I changed that section around a bit so the development section actually begins with the strip's conception. Good call :) ~Mable (chat) 13:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 but fans named it "Beanish" Any idea why it was called so?
Honestly, no idea. Haven't been able to find that out with a few Google searches. I may try again later. ~Mable (chat) 12:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... my nitpicks have been addressed where proper, and the article is already in such a great shape. I can hardly see a flaw. Happy to promote :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and the faith in it! I know that it isn't quite FA-class yet, but as I thought, it meets all the GA requirements. I'm very thankful for your look at it :) One step closer to the first webcomics-related Good Topic! ~Mable (chat) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Kudos to you! Why don't you request a peer review? It has got the stuff for an FA. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I think its plot section needs a lot of work for that, and I'm simply not interested in editing plot. I've gone through it once and that is more than enough for me :p ~Mable (chat) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no expertise in this type of articles but it is no doubt GA-standard, PRs get you more editors from the field :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently, the mention that the comic was based off the flood of the Mediterranean Sea is not in the lead section. This plays a important part in understanding the plot of the comic/story, and it may be helpful to place it in the lead section, but since I'm not sure if this would be a helpful addition or just repetition and not fitting in the lead section. Is there any way that the lead section can be re-written in order to fit the basis of the comic/story on the flood of the Mediterranean Sea?Mount2010 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Good question! I personally strongly prefer to have a short description of what a fictional story is about. What do you think of my latest edit? ~Mable (chat) 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)