Jump to content

Talk:Randall Munroe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Work

"Job:

My about page mentions that I work for NASA — I’m technically a contractor working repeated contracts for them. However, they recently ran out of money to rehire me for another contract, so I’m done there for now. This isn’t really bad, because it came right as the t-shirt orders were becoming so strong that I really needed the time off to handle them. Combine that with answering the huge amount of email I get through the site, drawing the actual comics, and assorted other things, and I really don’t have the time to work a full-time job at the same time that I do this comic/store. So, for the moment I’m now a full-time webcomic artist/t-shirt designer. I don’t know how to thank you enough for all the support."

So he did not "leave" NASA. Changing now. KevinPuj 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a little complicated. That particular line of contracts was expiring, but were other potential contracts floating around on other projects that probably would have picked me up. I decided not to follow up on them and told everyone I was leaving. Anyway, this is all first-person original research just to clear up the talk here. Someday I'll clarify the story somewhere reference-able, but it's not really important. --Xkcd 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)xkcd

Haha, someone just linked me here, pointing out that my working at NASA (as seen on my 'about' page on my site) was removed for being "patently made-up information". Ouch. Though, to be fair, the folks at NASA were also skeptical when I said I was going off to do a webcomic full time. --Xkcd 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)xkcd

The wording is confusing -- it says he worked for NASA both before and after his graduation from college in May 2006. But it also says his contract with NASA ended in January 2006. Should it be January 2007??

Merge?

Would it maybe make sense to merge XKCD with Munroe or Munroe with XKCD? Munroe seems to be mainly notable in that context and doesn't meet WP:BIO aside from the XKCD related stuff. JoshuaZ 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. He's only 22. I'm sure he'll continue to be a notable individual aside from his contributions to the world via XKCD. Besides, having personal information (such as where he went to college) about Munroe on the XKCD article would be silly, and since I actually just came to this page to find that tidbit of information, I'd say it's notable enough to merit inclusion in wikipedia. --Hurtstotouchfire 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
More alsoer, I'd say he does meet WP:BIO, via "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." and there's no reason that "the xkcd stuff" should be disregarded in considering Munroe's notability. --Hurtstotouchfire 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you can say that it's he who has a large fan base, it's rather the xkcd brand that does. It's also not Wikipedia's job to predict who will be notable in the future. Fatalis talk 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"it's rather the xkcd brand that does" -- clearly, but I think there are plenty of very popular comics whose authors don't necessarily have widespread name-recognition. In any case, I think that his invitation to speak at MIT and the reception he received reveals a large fan base. See details on the talk.
"It's also not Wikipedia's job to predict who will be notable in the future." Certainly. And I didn't actually mean to imply that it was. I had just read the article on Munroe for the first time and was still reeling in the knowledge that he's younger than I am. Very surreal. He has a very well-followed comic, and a web forum with over 14,000 registered users discussing every comic he posts. It's startling really. At 22. Anyway, clearly I think he's notable, and clearly you have a few points to argue against what I said, but is anyone still seriously considering merging this article into xkcd? Because I don't want to get into a debate on the finer points on notability. It gets ugly. --Hurtstotouchfire 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If he were to write a comic strip outside of xkcd, it's more than likely that his fan base will be interested. If this happens, though, it would be weird see it mentioned in the xkcd article but it should definitely be mentioned in a description of Munroe. The articles could be merged right now but I don't see any need for it. --Antonio.sierra 02:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that a man who, at 22, can summon almost a thousand people to get together at a random set of GPS coordinates and a time, some of them traveling literally from the other side of the planet, simply by drawing the numbers into a comic that asserting that nothing will happen there, is worth having an article. The college talks also seem relevant, and (having been at one) not all that related to XKCD itself save for shared subject matter - and I suspect that he may have gotten more people to his talk than Mandelbrot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.72.6 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In spite of the fact that he gives talks about other things than the xkcd brand, he would have no recognition if not for the xkcd brand, and most of his recognition is pigeonholed into that fame. I feel that he does not likely meet the basic criteria for WP:BIO. I base this on the fact that I do not believe there is a lot of reliable secondary sources about him that are not in the context of him being author of the xkcd brand. Feel free to prove me wrong on this note. Marsman57 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
He is also notable for solving (and publishing the solution to) the Ghost (game). --mott
Although he got his fame through xkCd he is keeping it through many means; levitating squirrels, running electric scooters against miniature horses, endorsing Barack Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.72.130 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


endorsing barack obama??? Like his "endorsement" is so very powerful. This person is not notable, this article should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgnar (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wet Riffs

Should there be a mention of wetriffs.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.135 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you revert my entry. I'm sitting here watching him talk at UIUC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.146.17 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was fairly sure Wetriffs was created a month /after/ the comic came out... as stated on wetriffs.com? Making the edit. 124.189.230.208 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Month after drawn != month after published. Tar7arus (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

University of Illinois Talk

You can watch the video of him at UIUC here: http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/conference/2007/videos http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/conference/2007/speakers#RandallMunroe 130.126.218.28 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Prod from Overcharm

I've dropped a note on Overcharm's talk page inquiring why they thought it fit to propose deletion of this page; clearly I disagree. Some discussion has already taken place on the Merge? thread, but I don't think it was quite aimed in the same direction. As Scott Adams would put it: "go".  ;-) --Baylink 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The nature of proposed deletion means that if you disagree, you can take it off right now. No discussion necessary (although you might want to). See WP:PROD for more information.--YbborTalk 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?

This article is in major need of a rewrite. The biggest problem is that more than half the article is dedicated to his talks. There should be sections for 'Early life and education', 'XKCD and other projects', and 'Internet popularity'. Some of the non-notable trivia should be removed too. MahangaTalk 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The first photo isn't very good, he doesn't really look like that. Anyone have alternates or how about swapping the two? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw him this last weekend and was going to get a picture but neglected to do so. <shameless plug> I have an interview with him that will be up on Wikinews shortly</shameless plug>. If I asked him he might be willing to upload another picture, although this one does look pretty close to what he looked like when I saw him at Vericon. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it upto him, if he wants a new pic or if someone finds the time to take one we/he can stick it up there. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I replaced it with one that's not COMPLETELY CREEPY. That picture had been bothering #xkcd for ages. 66.92.17.200 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
ha ha #xkcd, then. sneakums (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
... but he hates the non-creepy one (for some reason) so here's a happy medium that I took a couple days ago. Good work whoever tidied the caption. 66.92.17.200 (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the talks

I think the Talks section should be removed. They don't really seem that notable on their own. We don't list every talk that other people have, why do so here? --Jedravent (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has opposed me, I have removed them. --Jedravent (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"BestRace"

Someone keeps adding information about "BestRace" here. Google turns up nothing, so I must assume this is merely vandalism to make the subject look racist. --Jedravent (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, after I removed some vandalism, someone impersonated me with a comment defaming the article's subject. It happened a few days ago, but I'm posting this here to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Issues

This article or section has multiple issues.

As does the subject, I assure you. --Xkcd (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)xkcd

Hahah, oh Randy; I almost love the discussion page more than the actual page just for your comments. -James, --67.172.223.89 (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be more sources of information about the guy. It disturbs me that he's only 22, heh. Maybe I'll hit him up myself. --68.92.151.50 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From now on, if anyone ever asks me "so what do you think is the real problem with Wikipedia?" I'm going to answer: Randall Munroe's page has a box at the top threatening deletion because he's not notable enough. I think that describes the rot at the core of Wikipedia better than just about anything I can imagine. 203.22.236.8 (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Randall, I cleaned up the article's issues, any that are left are all your own! :-) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
And to reply to some of the other comments above, the real problem isn't that someone tagged it, rather it's that the article sat in such a sad state and nobody bothered to fix it- one of those tags was there for nearly a year! It was easy to Google up good reliable sources like the New York Times article. When you see something on the encyclopedia that needs doing, and it's something that you can do, just do it; kvetching on the talk page accomplishes nothing. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed - Joke?

It seems to me like the citation needed in the caption under the Wikipedian Protester picture was put there more as a joke than for a more serious reason. I think the picture makes it obvious enough that the caption is true.207.112.94.201 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Randall Munroe

Anyone know where Randall went to college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.212.37 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


The about page on xkcd.com indicates CNU, which through a quick interweb search reveals Christopher Newport University in Newport News, VA. Bill Kramme 07:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He did indeed go to CNU, graduating in May '06. If I recall correctly he was a physics major. I can get a friend of mine or Mr. Munroe himself to verify that. AvesCorax 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to confirm it with him personally since his website (arguably the most authoritative source) shows it, but I did anyway, so Christopher Newport University it is. Bill Kramme 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


WHO CARES WHO HIS ROOMMATE IS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.95.11.66 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He majored in applied physics and minored in computer science and mathematics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.221.213 (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

President of the Internet

"it is worth noting that Mr. Munroe is now President of the Internet. He declared himself to be so at a speech at Carnegie Mellon. No authority existed before to deny him, and no one can deny him now because he is President of the Internet."

i found this quote in a comment here, but that is not verifible... http://hawtymcbloggy.com/2007/11/20/you-are-not-cracking-everybody-up/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.14.104 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a humorous statement...? On a more serios note, take a look at WP:BLP - unsourced or poorly sourced material shouldn't be added. Rror (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Typing in "President of the Internet" should not be redirected to Mr. Randall Munroe. There are several different declarations of who is the president of the Internet and Mr. Munroe's is one of the many out there. Typing in "President of the Internet" should bring up a disambiguation of what else is out there, rather than a redirection. I believe that "Anonymous" also declares a president of the internet. If I am correct about this, this year's president is Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necropirate (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous did not declare Ron Paul as their leader, Anonymous has no leader. He merely calls himself their leader to try making them his personal army.203.97.119.134 (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I proposed President of the Internet for deletion (hope I didn't mess up). Anyone can claim to be president of the internet on the same grounds as claiming to be president of the atmosphere. Rror (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
...and it's gone. Rror (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Cutest

Apparently the link does not direct to a site by randall anymore. That should be checked. 93.219.155.243 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ball Pit

I'm sure someone's going to come around and change this text, but I just want to say 'It should be noted that Munroe has recently built a ball pit in his own living room.' was the funniest thing I've ever read on wikipedia. Thank you to whoever put that in. dimo414 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Should it be noted? Really? Okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.188.141 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Aw, they should add that back in! If it can be cited, it's really good stuff, because he made a comic about that. -EDW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.211.73 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Programmer

Is there a citation for him being a programmer? I know he makes reference joke webcomics, but what has he really programmed? The term is often abused as much as 'writer', you're not a writer if you wrote a thank you letter for a christmas present, just as randall is not a programmer just because he writes reference jokes to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.148.135 (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, it sounds like Randall Munroe was a *student worker* at NASA. When I was in college, I was a student worker in a state econometrics bureau. I guess that makes me a "former government economist and statistician?" -- Jordan Bettis (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

Has he done anything important apart from XKCD? We should merge this article with xkcd

74.216.12.146 (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest continuing this in the section above called "Merge?" It's better to revive an old discussion in the same section so as to make the older material easier to reference. KhalfaniKhaldun 01:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, how about working for NASA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.230.127 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
So - wait a second, everyone who works for NASA gets a Wikipedia page? Shenanigans. Take your fanboyism elsewhere. Merge with xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.10.2 (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
One thing that he is noted for is the check he wrote to Verizon for . Synetech (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not even mentioned in the article anymore, because apparently, no reliable secondary sources reported it. Svick (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Even if there are reliable sources for it, you can't use it to justify the existence of the article as a whole. All he did was fill out a check in such a way that banks wouldn't accept it, and then post a picture of it somewhere. It doesn't increase his notability. So, if you someone wants to argue for Randy's personal notability, "the check" is the wrong way to do it. -Homeless prophet (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not just the check, or at least not just the picture; there is also the infamous recording that demonstrates the intelligence level of the Verizon customer service reps (or lack thereof) in basic mathematics. Synetech (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hometowns

I'm Randall's brother and he definitely grew up in those places. I am not sure what other sources I could use to prove this, as I'm not sure that he's said anything about it in any interviews--though I have not read them all.Richard Munroe (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I, too, am Randall's brother, and I say with certainty that he grew up in Inner Mongolia and on the plains of the Serengeti. This is why we need references. Skomorokh 04:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is verifiable through Facebook. Richard Munroe (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Not to anyone your privacy settings are set to disallow searching for you it's not. While I fully understand that there is the possibility that you're his brother, we have to also consider the possibility that you are not. That is why Wikipedia has a policy on no original research and citing all material that might be challenged with a reliable source. You, especially, might want to read Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest, especially the section about close relationships. Most importantly from that page, "As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area." KhalfaniKhaldun 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your reasons for reverting the article, I had already read those pages. I had forgotten that I was mentioned in one of the comics' mouseover text more recently than comic 20, and this time by name. Richard Munroe (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding, and for finding a source before returning to edit again. =) KhalfaniKhaldun 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The rude comments really don't help. If you're thanking him for understanding that he needs to have a verifiable source, you don't need to reiterate that he should have this source "before returning to edit again." Plus, he could still edit other things, such as spelling, grammar, and structure, without needing a source. 205.154.237.150 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are Randall's brother, get Randall to put it in xkcd. Then you can cite that. Why don't people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.125.247 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, "Richard Munroe" could locate old school year books or school documents such as transcripts or report cards. Those usually state the student's address, name, grade, teacher, and school. And considering most schools require proof of residence for a student to become enrolled, well. There's your proof right there. From the age of 4, most Americans have some level of paper-trail, it just requires a few moments to sit down and think about where we've been and the lines we had to wait in to get there. JourneyV (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Time at NASA

" he graduated from Christopher Newport University in 2006 with a degree in physics.[4][5] Munroe worked as an independent contractor for NASA at the Langley Research Center[6] before and after his graduation. In January 2006 NASA did not renew his contract"

Ok, so he graduated in 2006, somehow worked at NASA as a contractor after his graduation, but stopped working at NASA in January 2006? So he graduated between January 1st and the 30th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.138.141 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The NASA stuff is back? This article was way better without it. It's Undue Weight. Munroe worked at NASA for maybe a year? He didn't do anything notable there. It's pretty common for college graduates to have a short term position in the field they majored in after graduation before finding that long-term employment prospects in their field aren't that plentiful/lucrative/interesting and moving into something else and perhaps becoming notable in their new field (webcomics in Munroe's case). Munroe was also a former high school student, probably formerly had a job flipping burgers or something similar and at one point in his life didn't have sufficient control over his bowels to avoid soiling his diapers. None of this is notable or worth mentioning in this article. Munroe's time at NASA is a footnote in his life.70.245.236.202 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 202. From this article it seems that Munroe was contracted by NASA for just a few months. It wasn't a career for him, it was just a temporary job; listing every job a person has held isn't notable and isn't useful. The only reason it appears reasonable to some now, is that Randall is still young, so it's still an important about of his resume. But when he's forty-five, will we still be leading this article with his time as an entry-level, temporary employee? It just doesn't belong in the article. -Homeless prophet (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Family Health Issue

No mention of the family health issue, the consequent break from penning xkcd, and how a number of other notable comic authors filled in? The details of the health issue are obviously personal, but the impact on xkcd would seem to be noteworthy … Futnuh (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It's not noteworthy, nor would he appreciate it. 175.36.147.82 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Location?

The citation for Randy living in Somerville is pretty old. Knowing that he no longer lives in Somerville, but being unable to locate a credible cite for this knowledge, what do I do? On the one hand, seems like the cite provided is the most recent source available that meets WP's standards; on the other, I know for a fact the information is wrong. I don't feel comfortable just nuking it based on that. Is there any sort of policy about citations "expiring" when they concern information that tends to change with time? Bakemaster (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the guiding principles here are WP:V and WP:NOR. WP:V states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You can do a couple of things. You can tag it {{disputed}} and wait for a source to come along that states his current residence. More productively, you could change the statement to read 'As of such-and-such a date, Munroe lived in Somerville.' That is a factual statement that withstands the test of time, and can encourage others to seek out more current sources for his current residence. That is the best idea I have at this time. Elizium23 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip; I'll keep that in mind for the future. Bakemaster (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Verizon check

I am removing the paragraph about the check to Verizon because it is poorly-sourced contentious information in a biography of a living person. It seems to be original research to be determining the amount of the check for ourselves. It is not a 'simple calculation'. The only sources provided are the XKCD site itself, and a blog. These are not reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I came to the page today when I realized that the check image is making another round on Facebook and connected the name with the author of xkcd. While I'm not expert on WP for one-sided stories, the calculation is simple enough precalculus to solve in Wolfram. I think the check is relevant and sourcing of the calculation can point to: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.002+%2B+e%5E%282*pi%29+%2B+summation+from+1+to+infinity+of+1%2F2%5En Clevell (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:CALC is very clear: This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources. This is not adding numbers or any of the other calculations given, and there is no consensus about the calculation either. Sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The calculation is indeed obvious and correct. The first part of the sum is a trivial constant, the second part is unarguably equal to -1 (look at this page), and the third part is unarguably equal to 1 (look at this page). The whole expression is unarguably equal to 0.002. There is no interpretation involved. Further reinforcement comes from how the number 0.002 is quite obviously a reference to the whole incident that prompted the cheque.
The only reason there has been "no consensus" on this obvious issue is because the cheque has been misread by somebody. In the revision history, the person who changed the value remarked "...[the cheque shows] e^(2*pi)", when in fact it is not 2*pi but i*pi (quick link to cheque for easy verification), an obvious reference to Euler's identity.
It is not a "simple" calculation, true, but consensus is unanimous amongst those who have read the cheque properly and thus the cheque should be reinstated into the article. If sources are absolutely demanded, I'm sure we could find a source somewhere among the hundreds of thousands of reliable sites that all evaluate the parts of the cheque sum in the exact same way. Or, you know, we could just not, because it's completely unnecessary. Jamesa7171 (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The facts you mention as obvious are original research unless reliable secondary sources are given to prove them. And since you say there are hundreds, why not include one? Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What kind of source would satisfy something like this? Jamesa7171 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Age

The source for birthdate information is a Facebook fan page. This doesn't seem like a reliable source, especially given the fact that other information on that page is sourced from this Wikipedia article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LVB (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wedding

Changed the line about the wedding to read that the announcement was posted in September, rather than to say that the wedding was in September, which isn't what the citation says. (As it happens, it wasn't, but there's no cite for that that I'm aware of.) --Relsqui (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Stoplights

Are the these 2 statements supposed to relate to one another?: "The comic has a very loyal fanbase. Munroe said, "I think the comic that's gotten me the most feedback is actually the one about the stoplights"." Because if they do, it needs something to link them. And if they don't, then the latter sentence doesn't seem to be worth including, or perhaps should llive on a separate paragraph. Lopifalko (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Cite 8 invalid

I'm not familiar enough with WP's policies or syntax to do this edit myself, but Citation 8 does not state that NASA didn't renew his contract. Should probably be removed / [citation needed]'d.

-- Charles (199.111.165.29 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC))

Radiation Dose Chart

"Extra dose to Tokyo in weeks following Fukushima accident" mis-stated. Says 40 mSv, should be 40 μSv. -- Localnebula (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely that´s all trivial levels. No need to worry. 212.23.103.124 (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

'Kudos' to whomever thought to add scroll-over text.

Scroll-over text for an image of Randall Munroe. How apropos. Fun and functional. Compliments to the editor. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the source markup, it seems that it may just have been a happy accident arising from how the infobox template handles the 'alternative text' (alt =) parameter ... cool whether intended or not though. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Randall Munroe's birthday?

I think there might be a case of Citogenesis (http://xkcd.com/978/) going on here.

Mr. Munroe's birthday is cited from a Facebook page as October 17, 1984, and that same page has Wikipedia as its source given at the end of the text.

A quick Google check didn't yield any other tangible reference.

LouisCYUL (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding an edit made to the xkcd wiki by one of the admins, "Xkcd admin" as another source for the date of birth. It seems to me that it satisfies WP:BLPSOURCES; if anyone disagrees they should feel free to remove it. Wrelwser43 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

[citation needed]

In honor of Mr. Munroe, I believe that a couple Wiki style [citation needed] citation brackets should be added to some of the more "obvious" statements, as it will infuse a little of his humor into the article and make it a more entertaining, yet still educational, article for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reffotniop (talk • contribs) 06:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't frivolously add tags for humor or entertainment value. They are for maintenance purposes only. Articles in Wikipedia conform to a high encyclopedic standard and they must all be written from a neutral point of view. Elizium23 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I can't help envisioning the previous a bit more like ...

Sorry, we don't frivolously add tags[citation needed] for humor or entertainment value. They are for maintenance purposes only. Articles in Wikipedia conform to a high encyclopedic standard[citation needed] and they must all be written from a neutral point of view. Elizium23 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

... and am left wondering whether to parse "we" as a 'royal we' or a brash presumption?
HailErisness23Skidoo --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"Articles in Wikipedia conform to a high encyclopedic standard." <--BULLSH IT. Try editing out blatant bias an article "owned" by a friend of an admin. I know two people I can never talk to again because they did that. Their mistake was not to back down when someone got angry. Reasoning and explaining to the "owner" will only get you to the admin notice board real quick, and the appeal process is a rubber stamp if any admin wants you banned. After that, I started watching the noticeboard, and the kangaroo court is a disgrace. They'll ban anyone any admin doesn't like and call it "edit warring" or "disruption." I've also seen other people summarily executed for disagreeing with an article "owner." That's why I never, ever edit controversial topics or post opinions to the noticeboard. It's death row. I'm almost afraid to even read the article about Israel.
Wikipedia conforms to a high encyclopedic standard? Propaganda. 15:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs) Note: I signed it but hit FIVE asterisks, which apparently only generates the date. Verdana♥Bøld 16:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Quaker

Is the only reference for Quaker heritage the one what-if comic? If so, it may not be reliable as he could be joking or exaggerating or pulling a Citogenesis (http://xkcd.com/978/) on us. Xargque (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also on his "About me" page. It's obviously not a joke. Where's the "funny?" If anyone else said they were a quaker, you wouldn't dispute it, why Randall? The fact he was raised in a quaker family isn't in google because that is not interesting enough for anyone to talk about it. Under what scenario do you imagine someone bringing that up in a blog post? I'm removing the "factual accuracy disputed" tag. Verdana♥Bøld 16:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)
I just wanted to note that I removed that sentence since it was a primary source that appears to be irreplaceable and, as far as I can tell, the blog post doesn't even say that anymore. Someone feel free to correct me on the latter point if I just missed it, even though the former still stands. Cat-fivetc ---- 03:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It is still there; presumably you couldn't find it because it's in the form of a footnote. I agree with Verdana Bold in that we have no reason to doubt the statement's accuracy, and have re-added it. Zacwill16 (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 4942 Munroe

This asteroid's only real notability is that is is named after Randall Munroe, and so it probab;y belongs as a part of that article rather than its own astronomical page. All the sidebar data [easily available at one link] felixphew (talk | contribs) 08:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that information on an astronomical object is best presented on the biography of the person it's named after, even if the person it's named after is it's primary 'claim to fame'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Martijn, the 4942 article should remain a stub. A mention should be made in Randall's article, however, I feel an astronomical object should not be solely represented in the biography of its namer. 129.130.18.10 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting question, but I disagree with "an astronomical object should not be solely represented in the biography of its namer."
If that's the only reason the asteroid is "famous", then yes, I think it should just be in Randall's page. And it only need be a single sentence, "An asteroid, 4942 MUNROE" Was named after him in 2003 [or whenever it was]." Verdana♥Bøld 11:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Radiation

The following unsourced sentences were added recently to the section about the radiation chart by an anonymous IP editor:

However, the chart is designed to be visually misleading by representing radiation doses for significantly differing periods of time for the circumstances depicted and at differing distances from the radiation source. E,g. Whilst many of the examples given represent one year's accumulation of radiation those representing the Fukishma and Chernobyl events are for periods of two weeks and one hour respectively, creating a false impression foR anyone not reading and understanding the significance if the small print.

They have since been adjusted and citation tags added. I have looked for evidence to support the claim that the chart has been criticised on these grounds, and have not found any. I am sure the chart can, and possibly has, been criticised, but I feel that the circumstances of its creation, the value that it does have, and the avowedly non-expert nature of its creator are adequately covered in the preceding paragraph, so I have removed these sentences. If there is encyclopedically significant criticism that should be acknowledged here perhaps someone can add it with appropriate citations. mooncow 14:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it's probably a moot point by now, but if Randall is comparing doses of an hour, two weeks, and a year; then I think this is extremely important and should be noted. Verdana♥Bøld 14:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Infobox "area"

Hmm, very curious as to why there's a "Pen and pencil" in the infobox for Monroe's area of interest/expertise. SPD ☎ ✎ 17:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Randall Munroe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Quaker

There is no reference for Munroe being a Quaker except a footnote in a joke comic. Additionally, engineering is an, um, /unusual/ career for a parent who is a Quaker. This is likely an attempt from Munroe to generate a case of citogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting, https://xkcd.com/978/) as a small-scale Wikipedia prank. Xargque (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate your rationale and agree that it cannot be included at the present time, I would suggest that we WP:AGF about Munroe's motives here. I am not sure where you get the idea that Quakers should shun engineering education and careers, especially based on a read of Quakers in science and a working knowledge of their beliefs. Are you perhaps confusing them with Amish or Mennonites? Furthermore, Pennsylvania is the place where you would expect Quakers to be, albeit only 10,000 in the present day. And I don't honestly see how this particular claim, of all things, should be an attempt to induce citogenesis. I think Munroe has better things to do. And by strict definition, this would not be a case of citogenesis, because the origin of the claim is not Wikipedia, it is a WP:RS. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
A little late, but here is a source:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reassessment of quality

I've reassessed this article's quality and consider it is better than a "Start" and is (at least) a C-class.

  • Start-class standard: "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources."
  • C-class standard: "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup."

This article has a number of reliable sources and covers all core information to some extent. This brings it past Start-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Good Question column

Since 2019 (and perhaps a bit earlier), Munroe has had a column in the New York Times entitled Good Question. The most recent article can be accessed here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/science/randall-munroe-question-popcorn.html Could someone add a bit about this coloumn or perhaps just acknowledge its existence? 72.138.144.38 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Birth date?

I found the deletion dates for the two citations for Randall Munroe's birth date - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_Munroe&direction=next&oldid=937919437 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_Munroe&direction=prev&oldid=937928182. Why were these sources deleted, and can we find new ones?

Bookipedia2001 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Two? I only see one citation in those revisions. A recent edit (re-)removed this date (which showed up in today's xkcd) and noted in the edit comment that the reference was to a "now vanished, unarchived wiki". So that's probably why it was removed. But! It turns out it is archived (Wayback Machine 2017-12-22). I'm not saying the date should be re-added on the strength of this citation alone (it's not exactly a paragon of WP:RS), but at least it's available to us to check. -- Perey (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Well found! For some reason I didn't see that when I checked Wayback. I suppose I should not label that an open wiki, but I don't think it meets the required standards for a BLP, and the xkcd could be Munroe's own version of citogenesis '-) In any case, under WP:BLPPRIVACY we do not give full birthdates that have not been widely published. I've just reverted reinsertion of the full date in the infobox with the xkcd as a reference. I understand from Explain XKCD that other-language versions of Wikipedia still have it, so it will likely get reinserted. Perhaps a footnote in the lead paragraph stating that the vaccination certificate in the comic gave that birth date, and a hidden note in the infobox? Of course, this morning's New York Times may mention that he revealed his birth date in the comic ... Yngvadottir (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Randall_Munroe/Archive_1&oldid=1146378705"