Talk:Time (xkcd)

Proposed merge with Xkcd
It's hard to see how an individual comic strip, even if it does get some coverage in its own right, can really justify a whole article to itself. K orr u ski Talk 16:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt if many individual strips will pass the GNG, but looking at the reception section this is clearly an exception. As for merging it into Xkcd, surely it would be too much detail there. In fact if there were a section in that article with as much detail on this story line as this one we should consider spinning it out.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  18:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - but then the level of detail on this article is totally excessive anyway (see comment below on overlong plot). I would suggest a single section on Xkcd which can focus mainly on the critical reception and the fact that this is an unusual format. Needn't be more than a paragraph.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly it could be condensed to be a section, but a section that would be on the margin of needing to be spun out. If it was a section then the issue would be whether to spin it out now or after further expansion. Since it has been started as an article it might as well stay that way - afterall there is no problem with having short articles like this, Wiki is not paper! If anything with the rise of mobile readers we should be looking at our longer articles and working out how to spin out little nuggets like this.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  05:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. Meets WP:GNG, existence of backstory and reception sections speaks for itself. Elizium23 (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge as page creator. In principle, I agree; you never see any articles about individual Garfield strips. However, this article is clearly an exception. It easily passes WP:GNG, and I agree with WSC that the merge (if done properly) would blow up the main article's WP:LENGTH. Dea  db  eef  19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, it is a comic strip, but it can also be considered a short animated film. So, it automatically differentiates itself from most individual comic strips which are, by and large, non-notable on their own. Chris857 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - as noted above, it meets WP:GNG, has many reliable sources and a huge reception all over the Web. BytEfLUSh &#124; Talk!  23:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Meets GNG and is of adequate length. Being an "individual comic strip" is itself a poor rationale for a merge. Individual pieces of art, including songs, paintings etc can have articles (rather than being merged into parent articles). -- Shudde  talk 05:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The collection of images is a story at super slow speed that are more in line with an experimental art film than a comic strip, it generated a lot of press for a single strip of a notable site, but given the backstory, creation and press - it clearly meets N and GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - I see one? support for the merge and a bunch of opposes (and it's been a while since any comment), so should we move to close this and remove the merge banners here and at xkcd? Chris857 (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Italics or quotes?
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? Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 21:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Overlong plot
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 (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 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.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The constructed language
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.-- K orr u ski Talk 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)

Character names
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. Dea  db  eef  13:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A separate article for a single comic?
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)

Removal of WP:N banner
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)

1189 or 1190
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)

Mentioning the basis of the comic in the lead section?
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)