explain xkcd:Community portal/Admin requests

 Create a new topic!      Refresh

Admin requests Welcome to your mother's basement! Problems requiring assistance from an administrator. User problems, changes to protected pages, obtaining user rights, etc. Create a new topic!

This page has archives. Discussions are usually archived after they have remained inactive for a long time or they are no longer relevant. Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Do you want expxkcd.com?

I did a thing over a decade ago, and I'm happy to keep the expxkcd.com domain/redirect working as is if that's what you want, but it feels... strange, and somewhat rude on my part, that I've been hoarding this domain when it ought to belong to the wiki. Would you like to have it?  greptalk04:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's you? Nice to meet you! I occasionally use it (a handy shortcut), though probably not as much as it deserves to be used.

(For those who don't know, BTW, a handy shortcut if you're viewing "xkcd.com/999", say, is to simply change that to "expckxd.com/999" and it brings you to "https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/999:_Cougars". Or whatever page you were on. Simple, but effective. Maybe even a good replacement for Googling "xkcd 999" and choosing the explainxkcd site 'result' over Randall's original? Anyway, I'm certainly very happy to promote this, for as long as it still works.)

As to handing it over. To who? We're a little short of active 'top level' admins, especially the person who owns this site's domain. (As recently confirmed, it's being renewed annually, but the person behind it seemingly isn't wanting to interact with us.)

If you want my, inconsequential, vote on this matter... I say that you're entitled to hold onto it for as long as you don't wish to abandon it for any other reason. - Though let us know if you do actively want to let it go, as maybe some (trusted, usernamed) user here might want to take it up. And better that than it expiring and being bought up by an awkward cybersquatter-with-ads place (or worse!) to catch me out the next time I or anybody else will use it out of (admitedly infrequent) habit. 92.23.2.228 20:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Mobile mode?

It seems the site now (it's been a month or so since my last visit) is only providing the desktop version of wiki pages, which are almost unusable on a mobile phone (need to zoom in and then keep flipping left to right). What happened to mobile mode? 2A01:CB08:82C3:1A00:989A:DBDC:903E:9CF9 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this, but then maybe thats because I don't ever browse in portrait mode, if that's what you do?

As to what's changed, there's been no noted overarching changes to any 'publically visible configuration files' of this specific site over that time period, so far as I've seen. And no reason to believe that anyone's been poking around in the backend configuration files that aren't shown up as Recent Changes of any kind.

But I have noted that Wikipedia itself is no longer serving "m.wikipedia.org"-domain pages to the mobile browser, as default (though it is showing mobile-'optimised' versions of the pages, which I find annoying and seems even harder to switch back to serve 'desktop pages' if I need them). So I'm wondering if there's been some change out in the wider 'mediawiki' world that is used as a stylesheet/whatever dependency for the whole wiki-world family, even this rather outdated setup?

A secondary idea is that the browser has updated (for both of us) to render or otherwise handle the pages differently. I know I've updated both the browsers I use on mobile, and they never really explain the actual changes behind these updates. It'd not be the first time that something has been 'improved' like that. I've had to enable legacy settings, sometiems, in order to keep it working (vaguely) like I was used to when the update has revamped the UI in ways that I'm sure some people liked but that I really didn't. 2.98.65.8 21:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Any change in the software, display, server, or MediaWiki version would have to be done by the owner User:Jeff, who is currently absent. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 22:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Why does everything useful need Jeff...

--DollarStoreBa'al^converse

21:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing disruptive material

Regarding disruptive material, namely comments on talk pages that are off-topic, trolling, unconstructive: can/should editors remove them? Elizium23 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Define 'disruptive'.

In general, we do not remove anything that is not vandalism, spamvertising or downright illegal. And while we may adjust the formatting of what others have written (re-headering/de-headering according to the needs of the page; a minimal correction of well-intentioned but badly implemented markup; moving around into an old/new alternate location that's more apt; etc), we don't remove mere 'nonsense' (that would potentially include a lot of comments, including many in-jokes).

If they're signed, then let old comments stay unless there's very good reasons for removing them. If they're not properly signed, sign them (either copy and convert the markup from someone else's 'normal' sigtext, replacing as necessary the username/IP and date of the actual author and datestamp that applies, or use {{unsigned}}/{{unsigned ip}} to do likewise) or whatever tidying up (moving things, adjusting whitespace) resolves the problem.

The whole Talk/Discussion page of a comic is expected to be less 'neat' than the main/Explanation. You can mercilessly rephrase, rewrite or even remove prior attempts at comic explanation, but the chatter about (and around, and perhaps even despite) the comic should be considered 'as is', every bit of it directly attributed as it is/should be to the various contributors responsible.

If you find that it's being abused, raise the issue. If I discover something that really shouldn't be there, I'll probably remove it myself. Or 'denature' the troublsome bit, if it's not all bad. If I see things removed for no given/good reason, I will as likely restore them. If there's a clash of opinions, I'd defer to the decision of certain named individuals (though most of them have been here for less time than me, I'm content to stay at the 'housekeeping' level, and leave dictating the (initially unwritten?) policy changes to others). 82.132.238.49 16:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Who is "we"? What you mean "we"? I hope you realize, random IPv4, that I am part of this "we", and my account is permanent, and I consider those removed comments to be disruptive. I also hope that you accept responsibility for wasting everybody's time. You are wasting everyone's time who comes to try and read those discussion pages. We are honestly sick of wading through crap comments that are spammy, or trolls, or just purely disruptive, and have nothing to do with the topic or subject, especially don't want to be arsed to improve the article with their suggestions. Just a long string of "first!!1 lol" posts is counter-productive and unconstructive. You restore these comments, because why? Because they are cute and funny and we're 12 years old here? I don't know. But you also say the "policy" is "unwritten" and I have a big problem with that. If I cannot refer to a written policy that will guide me in terms of keep/delete disruptive comments, then I will lean towards deleting, over and over again, because your shitty justification on the Admin Portal talk page does not constitute a policy, random IPv4 with no reputation. Elizium23 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"We", for me, is the community consensus. You are part of "we", but (like me) just one small part. And you are very new here, hence we/I understand your eagerness to enforce things that aren't actually desired to be enforced. 82.132.238.49 17:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not, actually, "very new here", as I have been editing this explainxkcd wiki since 2021 -- that's five years, do the math -- and I've been reading explainxkcd for longer than that, and reading xkcd for over a decade. Thank you very much. YOU are new here, however: nobody knows what the hell you did before a couple weeks ago. Elizium23 (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow. A whole five years. Or more, apparently... but at least we're not trying to apply the argument from ignorance to your claim. And yet clearly still unaware of so much.

Quickly checking (because I can, and I apologise that there's no practical reciprocal check for you to use against me/others of my ilk) 73 of your 129 edits, so far, were this January, after large gaps between any obvious 'active visits' before that. Suddenly you've been doing more than three times more editing in each of several consecutive days than you ever did in various other occasional days (even whole months) beforehand.

Making yourself felt. Though you're clearly starting to annoy people here. Even 'proper users'. If you want my advice, which you probably don't, I'd do more reading and less assuming. This does not mean that your opinion is worthless, but it does mean that you're possibly over-reacting and definitely overreaching.

Perhaps you're importing "standard practice" from a different site, where you're probably a fully upstanding pillar of that community. You certainly give me the impression of this, though you might as well have been just any new user up until fairly recently. Trying too hard. 81.179.199.253 19:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The "we" who are "honestly sick of wading through crap comments [etc]" isn't so obviously something.

If you want my personal opinion, I could happily do without "First"s, and never see one again. But when a "First" is happily subverted, often in the very spirit of xkcd, that's become a part (and just one aspect) of our typical community reaction. In moderation, it's part of the glue. And you don't need to pay any attention to it.

If someone ruins the 'article', fix it. But if you look back though the comments to the many prior articles you'll find many things that (I suspect) you'd disagree with. Ask yourself: is it worth going on a potentially one man crusade, or perhaps you can understand why there is jocularity expressed in the discussion page for a (usually) humorous cartoon.

Similarly, as another example, the "incomplete, by a BOT TOPICALLY RELEVENT QUIP" header is never intended to stay there forever, but has been humorously subverted over time as its original purpose (filling in all the gaps in explanation) has dwindled. There's no rush to remove it (it was put there by the (struckout) BOT that automates the article creation, and doesn't even start with the reasons the nearly blank page is incomplete). This is more now just a community thing. I like to think that someone who checks in just once a week will get to see the JOKE added for each new explanation they hadn't read before... And, though most comic descriptions will likely never be complete (edits of even single-digit comic explanations are forever possible), I certainly wouldn't think bad of anyone who made de-Incomplete a comic of a month old or more. But it's a long standing tradition, that new readers perhaps don'tunderstand. (If they stick around, perhaps they will.)

Finally, like I said, I'm not living on my reputation. I don't care that I'm indistinguishable from A.N.Other IPv4. (Still, at least I'm not an IPv6, the scum of the earth! (/jk)) I'm not trying to claim authority here. I'm just the one who happened to check the site and found your query and first attempted to convey a bit of background knowledge, as you were good enough to ask everyone in such an open manner. Perhaps the next response will be from someone like Kynde (or even others such as Favi/42/Ba'al/etc, with apologies to all the rest I might have mentioned instead), and you will find their reasoned response less "shitty". I'd not be surprised to find that it's fairly similar to mine, though, so do feel free to insult them exactly as much as you have me, for consistency's sake.

Deleting "over and over again" is perhaps the least useful thing you could do, though. At some point there's going to be someone having to make a decision over whether the deleting repeatedly is better or worse than the restoring repeatedly. I've only restored things once (I noted, after the fact, that someone else had previously restored one of the things, today, before you deleted it the second time for me to then see that and reverse it). Once another 'username' gets involved, we'd both have to accept where it goes from there. Better a reasoned discussion than a battle, of course. Which I do hope can happen here. (The discussion, that is, not the battle.) 82.132.238.49 17:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

You want a policy to refer to? Please see here. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 22:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Fully agree with the IP here. I've added your first comment to the FAQ and rephrased it a bit :) FaviFake (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

So basically, you have just now "updated policy" unilaterally based on a few people agreeing here. Three days ago the policy gave no prohibition on deleting disruptive material.

With this response and enshrining this into policy, you are basically telling constructive editors that you enjoy wasting our time. We have to read and scroll through absolute bullshit and nobody can remove it from our view, because you think it is valuable to "possibly preserve in-jokes" within the b.s.

You are utterly wasting our time and you are proving that you hate regular editors with accounts, and you care more about trolls and spammers than about editors who are trying to do something constructive here. You are wasting our time, our free time, our volunteer time, that we're trying to give to this wiki. Elizium23 (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

'Our'? Ok. 81.179.199.253 19:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've updated the FAQ, which is technically not a policy, to reflect the rough community consensus regarding leaving talk page comments as they are, to avoid future editors being confused by our talk page practices. Off-topic comments have been allowed since the literal creation of this wiki as they were a direct replacement for the comment section under the original blog's posts, iirc. FaviFake (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand where Elizium23 is coming from. Official enwiki policy is that talk pages are only for collaboration, not for discussing the article's topic itself. The way I see it, we have a couple options as to how we can proceed. We can make it so that our talk pages are only for collaboration between editors on how to write up our explanations, as proposed by Elizium23. I am against this idea, as it prevents people from easily commenting about it. These so-called "off-topic" comments are much more frequent than proposals as to how to improve an explanation, so I believe that they should be held as priority. If we do go forward with Elizium23's idea, we can use the Community Portal. Either we can make a new forum, or we can use the Miscellaneous one. New topics/headers can be created every time a comic is created (by TheusafBOT perhaps? We can't really force Theusaf to do anything though and that'll be up to his discretion) and we can have archives for each month's comics. I don't like this because it is inaccessible, hard for people comment after some time, and requires more effort on our part to "organize" our discussions. ALthough the policy change I added is new, I would believe this is the consensus of the community. If you would like to see if anybody else would like to add their comments/opinions to this issue, I would be fine with that, given that we make a decision in a timely manner. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 03:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems that you do not, in fact, understand where I am coming from. For starters, I never proposed here anything such as you describe. You have created another strawman to set on fire. So if you continue to wilfully misinterpret your volunteers who are weighing in here, then that is your loss. I simply object to the material that is time-wasting, obviously disruptive, far off-topic. I do not know where else you would corral it to, and I do not much care. Nobody would follow such a policy "hey guys, if it's spam or trolls or in-jokes then post it <over here> instead!" That is a ridiculous expectation of spammers and trolls. But it is, evidently, expected for them to continue wasting our time. Elizium23 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The only way I see this is that you are insisting that we have to change the way we have done things for over a decade. You barge in here, make a couple edits to make yourself look like a longtime editor, then demand that we completely revamp this wiki. If you don't have a solution to this so-called "problem", please leave us alone. I see no consensus from the community that these comments are an issue, other than you. My comment was merely trying to find a way to implement a solution to your woes while still respecting the opinions of commenters. (please excuse my new signature, this is still the same person). tori :3^{talk to me!} 16:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

One of my personal mantras: Don't fix problems that don't exist. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse (BLM) 16:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see, “because it’s always been this way” is the best way to set policy here. This is why your front page fills with pornography and your wiki has a constant stream of spammers creating new accounts without any gatekeeping. You are manufacturing a truckload of strawmen against me. Now, you falsely accuse me of somehow attempting to defraud you? That is idiotic and reprehensible. Why would I even do that. Just where did I insist to “completely revamp this wiki”? All I said is that I created my account several years ago, and I am, by no means, new around here, and you have no idea whether I have made edits without using this account. Compared to random IPv4 with 3 weeks’ reputation. Get real. Elizium23 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You're demonstrating that you are almost entirely unfamiliar with this site and its community. Do we have many automated spam accounts created, very much yes. Do we have those spam accounts actually spam us, very much no. Without wishing to be blasé about it, I suspect that we're getting the same amount of attempts to create bogus accounts as any other similar web-facing site, but perhaps foiled at a different point, so more obvious. And yet, the through-put of actual spam is far lower than a number of various other places I could mention.

The spam and vandalism that we get seems to be almost entirely from non-automated interference, for which there is never an easy blanket protection, and yet is often quickly dealt with either by the regular visitors' manual reversion or various automated addons of our own.

So please take your sarcasm somewhere else. You are welcome to be here, but your tilting against windmills (without even a single Sancho Panza to humour you) can get repetitive. I speak only for myself (and 'however many weeks' this particular IP might have been around), but I feel comfortable that the only generally arguable matter is whether I (or anyone else?) should have been trying to humour you in the first place. 81.179.199.253 14:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey so did we reach a consensus on if blatantly disruptive comments and/or trollposts should be removed lol? I can't really tell because the discussion here kinda devolved into blatantly disruptive commenting. Eyetorus (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think a reasoned response to an unreasoned (but not clearly written-to-be-wrong) one is better than saying nothing but being censorious.

If it's a genuine opinion, then there may be discussion and understanding, where "vanishing" it just makes them worse (and likely to arbitrarily remove things they do not understand/comprehend).

If it was a troll, they could just keep reposting, without logical refutations ever appearing next to their contributions, and anyone spotting those might be dragged into the rabbit-hole if there's no "yeahbut" response clearly demolishing the falsehood.

It's a tricky balance, though. And I'm assuming you're talking of comic Talk contributions (as you just removed an 'argument/counter-argument’ pair from one). The other issue of potential comic Explananation back-and-forths are best dealt with to acknowledge (reasonable) opposing viewpoints, instead of leaving the 'wrong' thing there and following it up with the 'right' counterproposal so that readers learn from the (potentially evolving) dialogue.

And we can't always agree on "disruptive material", so that's still a conversation that's ongoing. 81.179.199.253 12:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. Different heights of bar for Talk and within comic explanations themselves.

Talk is essentially chat, chat is cheap, but also free-speech (within various limits) should apply. And better "jaw jaw" than "war war". Nothing wrong with honest disagreements. Can always shove a complex set of arguments and counter-arguments into a sub-page (or a time-limited set, in the case of the 2016 I'm With Her discussion page). But you don't have to trawl (or troll!) through the full Talk page for a comic.

Discussions can be rewritten if you don't like a prior rewrite (too much, not enough, not the right interpretation at all), but someone else can have their own issues with your version. Be embracing of such things. Which can be tricky if your opinion is that what's there is too embracing of too many alternative interpretations, admittedly. ;) 82.132.236.209 13:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That's

HELP!

In the (perhaps brief) period between Explain XKCD down times, I'd like to post a message to the Powers That Be: WE NEED HELP!

We have lots of problems:

• The system keeps going down, and if (when?) it doesn't happen to come back up on its own there's nobody who could fix it
• The comic for July 6 never posted, probably because things are decaying quickly
• We're running extremely old versions of the software (MediaWiki 1.30.0 from June 2019, and PHP 7.2.34 from November 2017), so there are likely bugs and security fixes we're missing. But, there are no active people with access to the underlying system.
• We have no active administrators, so there's no way for us to handle unusual situations (e.g. vandalism)
• We have no active bureaucrats, so there's no way for anyone to become an administrator
• Someone's paying for the hosting of this, but there's no clarity on who (Jeff?), and no way the rest of us could contribute to the expenses
• A new XKCD was posted yesterday, but there's no new page for it, probably because the system is broken.
• Even posting this message was fraught, as the system bailed multiple times (more than ten) before finally allowing me to post
• Even logging in seems to be broken, as I discovered when (as suggested on the error page) I logged out and tried to log back in. (I had to post this anonymously)

Hundreds of people have put thousands of hours into creating and editing the pages on this wiki, and it's sad that the foundation is decaying. We could use Special:Export to export pages, but that only exports the text, the process would be tedious and error-prone, and it would be difficult to get a new community anywhere near as strong as the existing one.

Please: we need any or all of the following...

• An active bureaucrat who can promote qualified users to admin status
• Someone active who has access to the underlying machine, and who could participate in a conversation about upgrading the software
• A way to back up the database and images so that if the whole system goes belly-up we have a chance of recreating it elsewhere.
• A way to support the hosting/maintenance of this Wiki

I, along with others, have been pleading for help for years. Is there anyone out there who could help? -- 74.104.147.14 01:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

There are some people working on a replacement which should resolve most of these issues (explainingxkcd). They are also trying to reach out to Jeff to discuss domain name transfer. —theusaf (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

"We have no active administrators, so there's no way for us to handle unusual situations (e.g. vandalism)"

...not strictly true. Even I, a humble IP, can deal with much of the vandalism (which is actually not that unusual). And have done.

What you're probably talking about is unusual situations which are likely not intended as direct vandalism (more probably accidental damage, even by legitimate actions, or damage as the result of carelessness by someone trying to do something else priblematical), which does indeed need anything up to a superuser-level of access to the server.

As to your other points, nothing really there that hasn't already been discussed beforez as you note. I feel your angst for the situation, but the things actually being done to overcome this were already happening before your post. Jeff seems to have been stirred enough to fix the things that only Jeff can fix, several whole-site copies have already heen made (possibly causing some of the timeout problems we've recently had, ironically) and if the full migration to one or other of these mirrors occurs then it was due to the urgency reaching a peak at the start of the week. I can only suggest "watch this space" (or, perhaps if things go sour again before they get 'fully fixed', some of the other spaces set up by other offshoots of the community).

Basically, Patience padawan... The wheels are turning, or perhaps are even being created in order that they may eventually turn. There's already several "it's broke, so I'll bring it back to life my own way!" efforts been started, though I think we might possibly have had just the one declared as the hopeful continuation effort. (Which, as theusaf says, may end up eventually looking seemless. Except, perhaps, for updating the effective wiki-engine so that ancient bugs are finally squished and we instead only need to worry about the inevitablevtotally new vulnerabilities.)

If and when we get a full transfer, though, do expect 'new' old problems. I can imagine them not quite managing to prevent the new-user spam. e.g. note the hhigh background rate of user account creation on this server, probably automated, most of which then seem to be successfully prevented from posting their automated spamvertising. As soon as "explainingxkcd" becomes a similar target (if they don't stick to account-creation-by-email), or 'answers' to the traditional flow of scripted traffic still aimed at "explainxkcd", I'm hoping that they already have the script-stopping resources in place to similarly bar new-user-spamming like that. Otherwise the place will be covered in the unblocked stuff (perhaps some gets undone again by theusafBOT’s efforts, the rest is down to the rest of us, as per usual).

But ke sera, sera... I can only guess where we go from here. Possibly it's an educated guess, but it could still be utterly wrong. 82.132.236.148 11:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

(It was I who posted the "HELP" anonymously; I've managed to login since then.) Excellent news. Add me to the list of people willing to help, and thanks. -- Dtgriscom (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Congratulations to User:42.book.addict and User:ToasterLightning on their recent ascension:
User rights log
This is a log of changes to user rights.
01:26, 11 July 2026 Jeff (talk | contribs) changed group membership for 42.book.addict from (none) to administrator
21:58, 10 July 2026 Jeff (talk | contribs) changed group membership for ToasterLightning from (none) to administrator
Although things seem to be more stable around here lately so I don't know exactly what's going on. JohnHawkinson (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Seeking edit-war adjudication.

Leaving it (at least, myself leaving it) at this point, with apologies for reverting the reverted reverting reversions already, I believe that we have someone who is just messing around and does not even have a legitimate reason.

Note that I restored some aspects of the Talk page that... did not 'add much' to the conversation. I did that as a matter of principle (they weren't against any of the stricter rules, though I wouldn't have written them myself). I'm willing to defer to "they're better off not there" opinions at an Admin-level (or, at the very least, a named-user of long standing), but the irony of an IP user having to complain over another IP user's choice of edits is not lost on me, even if I feel I have the higher (or at least above sea-level) ground, in this case.

What's betting that, by the time I post this, the edit linked above has been re-reverted? Not going to edit-war directly on that, any more, though happy to discuss this. Either with the other party, if they care to, or anybody tangibly more authoritative who might wish for an open dialogue about it. But I'm cooling myself off, so it'll be tomorrow before I can respond to any responses. By which point, naturally, it may well be moot. 92.23.5.92 00:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Likewise, I have tried a number of times to reinstate deleted comments on that page, and to engage with the deleter, both through the edit log and through the comments themselves, to no effect. I would note that while some of the comments they've deleted are arguably of a comedy / attention-seeking nature that doesn't add much to the discussion, others are more substantial, and it doesn't even seem to be the same ones each time, which is more suggestive of vandalism than a reasoned attempt to remove content they don't think should be there. 82.13.184.33 08:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Add autoconfirmed permissions

Hello! I have a logo design proposal for the contest, but I can't upload the file since I don't have the autoconfirmed user right. Could someone give it to me? I used to IP edit so I'm not as much of a newcomer as I seem to be. (Also, the current autoconfirmed criteria, 1 week and 50 edits, seem really high; on Wikipedia they're just 4 days and 10 edits.) Foo (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Foo I don't seem to be able to assign rights to other users, but if you upload the logo to a iimage hosting site like imgur.com we can upload it for you! FaviFake (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

News Feed

If explainxkcd has a newsfeed, my news reader (NetNewsWire) cannot find it. If one does not exist could you add a newsfeed to the website? RSS is probably the simplest. Inquirer (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Inquirer We have an RSS feed, but it's currently broken. Read explain xkcd:Community portal/Technical/Archive 3#RSS FEED for more. It'll pop back into the left sidebar once it works again. FaviFake (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)