This panel of xkcd is the perfect example of geeky humor typical the webcomic, while neutral in its subject matter (unlike the many Wikipedia-related images). -- ~Mable (chat)
Copyright is solidly established. The image was reviewed by admin Sven Manguard and Randall Munroe actually frequents xkcd. I changed the scope to "xkcd panels" so that it won't share a scope with images such as "File:Radiation Dose Chart by Xkcd.png" or "File:Cory Doctorow @ eTech 2007.jpeg". Feels awfully specific, but then again, I'm new here :p ~Mable (chat) 18:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment Others may disagree, but I don't see how this fits the VI concept. Charles (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that I inherently misunderstand the VI concept - if so, I'd like to know what the issue is before I repeat it and make a fool of myself ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 03:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be a good day to make a fool of yourself! The idea is that 'Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects'. So a VI has to be in a category that is searchable and has to describe the image. So this is a cartoon and should be in some sort of cartoon category and would normally refer to the artist (or if anonymous) the publication I suppose. Others may have a different opinion as I'm not the most expert here... Charles (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
