explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination

 Create a new topic!        Refresh

Coordination Page for coordinating community-wide tasks among the explain xkcd wiki members, such as the creation of new categories, the layout of explanations, and maintaining a consistent writing style. Create a new topic!

add twafi (changes colour and image and imagesize) add what/type

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

File sizes

Hey, just noticed that a lot of the older xkcd comic files, especially the ones done by hand back when DgbrtBOT and TheusafBOT created yet, are all ___.png, while nowadays TheusafBOT uploads ___-2x.png files. Should we change the old files and make them all 2x, or should we just keep it like that? 42.book.addict (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO (for what it's worth), leave them as they are. Anybody really wanting the _2x version (where they exist, as they haven't all got them) can grab them from the source site.

It's actually a bit wasteful to upload the _2x and constrict them to display at non-2x sizes (and not to restrict them will often cause Explain-page misrendering that needs resolving again), but it was a fairly recent choice made by Theusaf to change their 'bot to upload the _2x rather than the long-term practice of the 'standard' size. Regularising everything would be require one image upload and (at least!) one page-source change to handle the change and I can think of just one maybe good reason to do so, vs. several fairly reasonable reasons not to bother.

On balance, it'd be a thankless task, and probably create problems for other people. I know that, if you think you have time to do it, you might take this as a challenge... but I honestly think it's not worth it. Let TheusafBOF do its thing (and Theusaf, or others, intervene when it hits a new odd exception that breaks its purposeful current uploading policy) and leave the old stuff alone. Until, and unless, there's a legitimate reason to update individual comic images (e.g. Randall posted corrections; like prompted a recent re-upload, though that needed redoing anyway..!). 172.69.194.95 21:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should, yes. I've done this a few times and this is my modus operandi:

1. For starters, download this Firefox browser extension. This will add a "2x" button above the comics on xkcd.com if a 2x version is available. If you don't want to use Firefox (or the Firefox-based Zen browser, which in my opinion is so much better in every way), you can ask an AI chatbot to create a bookmarklet for you that will do the same.

2. Copy the following text somewhere; you'll need to paste it on every comic.

_2x.png
 | imagesize = WIDTHxHEIGHT px
 | noexpand  = true

3. Now open the explanation and middle-click two things: the publishing date (to go to the original comic on xkcd.com) and the comic image file (to go to the file page on explainxkcd.com). If you use middle-click, they'll open on two new browser tabs.

4. Click the "2x" button above the comic on xkcd.com, then right-click the image, and download the image to your computer.

5. On the file page on explainxkcd.com, copy the WIDTH and HEIGHT in px which shows up immediately below the image itself.

6. Edit the explanation and replace the existing .png text in the comic image name with the blurb you copied in step 2. Replace WIDTH x HEIGHT with the actual parameters you copied in step 5. Note that you'll need to replace the "x" multiplication character with an actual alphabetical "x".

7. Publish the changes and click on the red link.

8. Upload the file you downloaded in step 4, selecting the correct license from the dropdown.

Done! The page will still show the red link, but that's because your browser still doesn't know you uploaded the image. This may go on for days, so don't worry about it.

This is a vey boring task and I don't know if anyone would want to do it. Maybe DollarStoreBa'al? I know I got tired after the 3rd time i did it. FaviFake (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Possible new "superheroes" category

i don't edit this wiki very often, but i recently decided to make a "superheroes" category since i was surprised we didn't have one already. i've been going thru the archives and adding comics, but today i noticed a bunch of the edits were reverted by one person with the reason "no such category". do i need to do something to get the category approved or were the reversions incorrect? 216.145.71.130 21:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

As the reverter, I'm suggesting that the way this is normally done is to notice the need and suggest that it is created, listing (at least some of) the cases.

While anyone with page-creation capabilities (not you, and not me) can "unredlink" the category, it'd be useful to make sure it's not just being created because of one person's vague moment of inspiration.

Not to say that you're unjustified, in this case, just that you hadn't gone any way to try to justify it. And it's better to do that. (The old phrase "better to ask forgiveness than permission" isn't really applicable here.) I'll happily help repopulate the new category, if and when it is decided to get created. Just it was being done the wrong way round.

Someone else mentioned that its name might need rethinking, and that's one of the aspects. Yes, it can be renamed, but still much better to be right to start with.

So I think it should be open to discussion... enough to convince someone else to make it a valid category, then start adding them back in again.

If I've picked them all up, BTW, I think the following are your candidates:

• 273: Electromagnetic Spectrum - (just copied from below, not sure without checking... maybe Superman?)
• 663: Sagan-Man‎‎ - "Sagan-Man", as per title
• 700: Complexion‎‎ - Batman
• 980: Money‎‎ - Batman mentioned
• 1004: Batman‎‎ - natch
• 1010: Etymology-Man‎‎ - "Etymology-Man", of course (In comic)
• 1012: Wrong Superhero‎‎ - and again
  • Category:Etymology-Man‎‎ - and his own category (of just two appearances...)
• 1384: Krypton‎‎ - Superman in comic
• 1394: Superm*n‎‎ -sprt-of Superman
• 1415: Ballooning - Spiderman in comic
• 1434: Where Do Birds Go - Superman mentioned in title text
• (Feel free to edit in any more, anybody!)

...so, along with any other finds, if it looks like we need Category:Comics containing superheroes (or similar) then your existing work hasn't gone to waste. 81.179.199.253 21:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

for archiving's sake, there's also 273: Electromagnetic Spectrum, 1415: Ballooning, and 1434: Where Do Birds Go.

1434: Where Do Birds Go has nothing to do with-- Oh, sorry! the title text mentions it. I have added where the superhero shows up in the list. Again, sorry! 14231423 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

So, I agree that 1415: Ballooning and 1434: Where Do Birds Go have superheros and should be added but 273: Electromagnetic Spectrum should not, there is no superhero as far as I can see. I have not removed it from the list if I am incorrect. 14231423 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

it would be nice to have character pages for specific superheroes like superman and batman (and, evidently, etymology-man), but "superheroes" in general is a topic, not a character. as for the name, it's in line with categories like Category:Aliens, Category:Demons, and Category:Sysadmins which are plural and don't start with "comics featuring". we do have Category:Comics featuring children, but it seems like an oddball to me (maybe because it's more of a meta-category for the characters page than one intended for casual browsing? dunno.)

should we continue discussing this here, on the character page talk, or somewhere else? i must admit i don't understand the organization. 216.145.71.130 22:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The wiki can be a bit inconsistent, because it's been going for a while and not everyone has gone with the same 'house style' (which may have changed over time, too). We have Category:Comics with babies, for example, and also Category:Comics with cursed items. While there are various "Category:Comics featuring <named characters, both real and fictional>", which would have more suited Etymology Man and could (if we so wish) serve for Batman, Superman, etc, individually.

I'm actually fairly ambivalent, but I think that it should at least have other voices agree on which way it all goes. Saves too much after-the-fact 'corrections'. But you don't want to be talking just to me about this, so I'll shut up now, and await some of the 'big hitter' accounts to weigh it all up. It doesn't need to be done right now. A couple more hours, at least... ;)81.179.199.253 22:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Responding to 216.145.71.130 I think thatCategory:Comics featuring children is named like that because children does not end in a s like superheros 14231423 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

no response about where to talk about this yet, so i'm just going to loop the other comment in here. changing the name to be more indicative as well. 64.189.140.8 07:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice category to me. FaviFake (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems quite relevant to me. Don't really see an issue with using the category name "superheroes" tori :3^{talk to me!} 16:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

here's the remaining ones i picked up:

• 1648: Famous Duos - batman and robin
• 1792: Bird/Plane/Superman
• 1848: Glacial Erratic - superman (title text)
• 1904: Research Risks - supervillains in general
• 1970: Name Dominoes - superman and batman (slightly up-right from the center)
• 2230: Versus Bracket - batman vs. superman and justice league vs. teen titans
• 2367: Masks - batman, spiderman, and mysterio (possibly scarecrow as well, no idea what his lore is)
• 2396: Wonder Woman 1984
• 3146: Fantastic Four

151.141.68.154 19:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

since there's been no further comments i went ahead and remade the category. if anyone with permissions can un-redlink it that'd be nice. 64.189.140.61 00:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You didn't "remake the category" because, as you say, they're redlinked until someone has sufficient reason to unredlink them. That's not the way we do things here, as explained, or else anyone could do something like Category:64.189.140.61 likes creating categories and expect it to be created without any consideration of need.

I'm not opposed to the category, in principle, but the only reason I'm not (re-)reverting all those pre-emptive new redlinks is because it's too much effort right now. Which is not the best reason for failing to uphold such practical standards. Well intentioned as you are (and I don't know why nobody else supported you by instating it 'properly'), some here may see your approach as akin to vandalism. 82.132.237.108 10:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I, unlike OP, have done quite a bit more preparatory work for the potential category.

See all the following edits:

*663: Sagan-Man, 700: Complexion, 980: Money, 1004: Batman, 1010: Etymology-Man, 1012: Wrong Superhero, 1384: Krypton, 1394: Superm*n, 1415: Ballooning, 1434: Where Do Birds Go, 1648: Famous Duos, 1792: Bird/Plane/Superman, 1848: Glacial Erratic, 1904: Research Risks, 1970: Name Dominoes, 2230: Versus Bracket, 2367: Masks, 2396: Wonder Woman 1984, 3146: Fantastic Four and Category:Etymology-Man

Note that I have done three things:

1. Chosen the Category:Comics featuring Superheroes variation, to match (among other more individually-aimed ones) the category name used in Category:Comics featuring major characters‏‎, Category:Comics featuring minor characters‏‎, Category:Comics featuring politicians and Category:Comics featuring real people‏‎. Consider this my official and reasoned suggestion for what the Category should be named. Subject to any further discussion on this matter (before implementation).
   • Yes, there are other inconsistencies to this. But then I'd also argue that Category:Etymology-Man really should have echoed the standard that resulted in Category:Comics featuring Kidball, too, as well the same (more historically or not) for Knit Cap, Cueball, Little Bobby Tables, etc.
2. I've added a 'category sort index' word, for grouping in the eventual automatic category listing. This is an optional extra, and I used "multiple" for those comics that weren't (easily) just one individual Superhero, but listed those that were involved in the next thing I did. If you prefer normal comic (or category) name-order, you could remove this pipe-option. Or, ideally, cut'n'paste it into any post-category comment just for editor referencing.
3. I have (where it seemed necessary, which is most of the time) added an apprioriate editor-'comment' after the category. Because I can't use HTML comments within HTML comments, I've rendered these with "(!-- .. --)" surrounds, which need fixing to use </> instead once the current commented-proposal surround is removed.
   • Note, im particular one of them... 1904: Research Risks, I think it was... where the comment made was that I don't think it qualified for Superhero, as it only references the concept of a Supervillain.

i.e. each (commented) placeholder should be easy to make into whatever (uncommented) implementation is agreed upon.

Now, please, OP and everyone else, do not just revert (or otherwise apply) a currently non-existent category 'in the hope' that it's correct and someone with an account will just unredlink it for you as a 'done deal'. Even if I were an account-holder (of suitable, no onerous, vintage) I would not just 'make it happen' without at least some proper discussion. Can't speak for what named-users might do, off their own backs, naturally. My opinion (informed or otherwise) doesn't have any particular weight, and it's still possible I can't persuade anyone (who matters) to adopt all of my own suggestions. 81.179.199.253 20:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

two account-holders said they approved of the idea. if this isn't proper discussion, what do you want me to do?

also, aside from flukes like Category:Comics with cursed items (which should be changed imo), the "comics featuring" name is just to avoid clashing with character pages: for instance, we named it Category:Comics featuring real people because Category:Real people was taken. "Superheroes" isn't taken; we don't have any character pages for superheroes in the first place. Category:Etymology-Man is a miniseries category, not a character category. (it has the same comics as a character category would have, granted, but it's not treated like one in any way -- hence the name!) 64.189.140.56 04:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I respect both Favi and tori's opinions, and I'm even (generally) in favour of this category. But nobody who can make it so that it isn't redlinking (simple enough... by now, even you could have done it, entirely on your own) has done so.

My (and others', it looks like) point has always been that it has for a long time been a fairly matter of fact process to announce "hey, I think this, this and this should be made to have that Category", some minor discussion occur, refinements/additions considered, then it gets done. If it doesn't, it's because of lack of buy-in and nobody was convinced.

Some things still might get done far too hastily/improperly (various Category inconsistencies are 'obvious') and the Pages To Delete tags get rolled out (where page-renaming isn't sufficient), but Deletions are even rarer than Renames (in part because of the rights required to do so), and both are outweighed by the creation of instances of what might just be considered as 'personal pet project pages' by some. That way lies indefinite expansion and random 'forgotten' stubs left all over the place, so if I have one personally overriding attitude to this whole thing, it's that of caution. I'd rather remove a redlink (otyer than abset User and User Talk ones in signatures) than let it temptingly sit there inviting the next near-newbie to create it 'because they can' (as demonstrably happens with the User/User Talk ones, anyway), regardless

(I haven't yet even decided upon my own username that I might use, after maybe more than a decade contributing here, which probably tells you more about me than anything else. Can't speak for others still posting via IP, like yourself.)

This is not me 'pulling rank', I must add. I have no 'rank' to pull, by my own decision. I'm just a random IP (as are you/any others not named yet) who just tries to do my best to do what limited things I can do to make this site operate smoothly. It was supposed to be a simple explanation of the established community convention that has tended to work well enough, and was never supposed to become 'IP-vs-IP combat', and I really hope still isn't, despite our clearly conflicting drives on how to reach the same sort of 'final' ideal (minor details varying). And I've had my own fair share of "wouldn't it be nice to have <some feature>?" not going anywhere, which I live with because this isn't 'my' site but a community one. (A strange community, naturally, but one of the better ones, out of all those I dabble in.)

That's the long-winded reply only here to try to explain (my, at least) previous long-winded replies. I'll leave the whole "Comics featuring" stuff undiscussed (save that, by consistency, yes, if Etymology-Man had enough appearances to merit a character page, some rearranging probably wouldn't go amiss to do the same as "Cueball"!="... featuring Cueball", etc). It's not a full on "386: Duty Calls"-type scenario, but I thought it worth a 'quick' last note as to where I'm coming from. It wasn't supposed to be this long! Sorry for wasting everyone's time, though. Even the like-minded ones? 82.132.237.17 14:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

New series/category: "Obvious analysis results"/"Genetic testing"

I was looking through the doctor Ponytail comics and noticed that at least 4 comics have a really similar premise and ending:

• 830: Genetic Analysis
• 1839: Doctor Visit
• 1840: Genetic Testing Results
• 2620: Health Data

They start with Cueball being analysed or genetically tested, and they all end with an obvious result. Could this be a new main Comic series (especially the last three), or maybe a new category like Category:Genetic testing? Comic series sets out these criteria for considering a series of comics:

All comic series are intentionally created by Randall as part of a series. This is usually inferred from sequential numbers in the titles (such as in Stargazing), similar patterns in the comics' titles (as in xkcd Phones) or captions (Cursed Connectors), release dates purposefully deviating from the normal schedule (Journal), a partnership with other artists (Guest Week) or companies (A Smarter Planet), or Randall bundling certain related comics in one page (The Boy and his Barrel).

Also, there are likely many more comics following a similar pattern. Could you list any that you find so we can decide what to call this new category/series? FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

New category: Alcohol

I propose a new category for comics on topic of alcohol and alcohol consumption (beer, wine, vodka, etc.), which should be a subcategory of Category:Food.

Proposed members (alcohol in comic):

• 273: Electromagnetic Spectrum
• 323: Ballmer Peak
• 518: Flow Charts
• 558: 1000 Times
• 617: Understocked
• 621: Superlative
• 653: So Bad It's Worse
• 696: Strip Games
• 826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)
• 915: Connoisseur
• 1100: Vows
• 1528: Vodka
• 1534: Beer
• 1645: Toasts
• 1649: Pipelines
• 1774: Adjective Foods (?)
• 1862: Particle Properties (?)
• 2108: Carbonated Beverage Language Map (?)
• 2437: Post-Vaccine Party
• 2661: Age Milestone Privileges
• 2729: Planet Killer Comet Margarita

Optional members (alcohol in title text):

• 2487: Danger Mnemonic
• 2636: What If? 2 Countdown

Optional members (only state of being drunk is mentioned):

• 589: Designated Drivers
• 930: Days of the Week
• 1506: xkcloud
• 1625: Substitutions 2

The list above is probably not complete. 37.31.42.127 18:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating a redirect for each what if? article

I was thinking that we have many categories for sorting through comics, but we don't categorise what if? articles. We could do something like this, taking the what if? article SAT Guessing as an example:

• Create SAT Guessing and redirect it to what if? articles#2 (for the book, it would be the number of the book + hyphen + chapter number, as in: what if? articles#2-3 for the third chapter of What If? 2.
• Create a template to add to all of those redirects which automatically categorises them in the new categories below based on the parameters given (e.g., first parameter is the book (or 0 for the blog) and the second is the article/chapter number)
• Create Category:What If? 2–exclusive chapters, Category:What If?–exclusive chapters, Category:All book-exclusive What If?–exclusive chapters, Category:what if? articles (for all blog articles), and Category:All what if? articles. These names suck but you get the idea, we can always change them.

We could even branch out and categorise articles that were turned into youtube videos, etc. Thoughts? FaviFake (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Create Category:Nerd sniping?

Should we create Category:Nerd sniping from Special:WhatLinksHere/356: Nerd Sniping? Perhaps as a subcat of Category:My Hobby? FaviFake (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Moving Trivia above Transcript

I never understood why the Trivia section goes below the Transcript. My understanding is that the Transcript is mostly only useful to blind users and for improving search results. On the other hand, the Trivia is actually useful to most people, for example when it lets the user know that the comic was changed after publication or that the comic is unique in some other way. Plus, the transcript is usually as long as the explanation, while the trivia is often just a couple of sentences, so it wouldn't really become harder to get to the transcript if the trivia were moved above it. This becomes even more of a problem for interactive comics whose transcript is incredibly long, which makes it even harder to access the trivia, which for interactive comics is usually full of of relevant details, like the announcements made by Randall about the comic or the way it was advertised.

There are hundreds of explanations that contain a trivia section, so if this rule is changed we don't need to update all those pages at once, but we can slowly start to move them and in a few years they'll all be above the transcript. For example, if someone is already editing a comic and they notice the trivia in still below the transcript, they can move it above in the same edit. FaviFake (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

IMO the Trivia doesn't really belong to the comic's explanation, it just gives some (more or less) random information related to the comic (or the explanation). You could remove the trivia section without losing any relevant information for explaining the comic. The transcipt however is an integral part of the explanation (especially for visually impaired people). Thus the order is as it should be. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

(I entirely missed this edited-in suggestion, for some reason, until the reply and other edits highlit its presence.)

There are widely different relationships between lengths of Explanation, Transcript, Trivia (if present) and the Discussion/Talk:-inclusion. If Trivia is 'typically smaller', it's because the Explanation tends to absorb some of what might be more rightfully considered Trivia, at least until someone decides to rectify that to streamlining the article. (When they don't just remove something, considering it personally superfluous.)

And Trivia is an optional section. You expect an Explanation, you expect a Transcript (with plaintext functionality beyond mere screenreading and searching function, even though those are the primary reasons), and there's no better place for the in-line transcluded Talk/Discussion-page than right at the bottom (which itself is often massive, making it just as awkward to zoom to the end and scroll up to find any particular post-Explanation/non-Discussion section from the back end).

One might even think that the 'more logical' rearrangement is to have the Transcript just below the comic and above the Explanation (maybe somehow inserted even above the {{comic}}'s Title Text section, given how many times people have erroneously wanted to re-add Title Text details to the Transcript, for understandable if incorrect reasons). After all, even if mere text-searching doesn't care where the transcript-text is, screen-reader users would benefit greatly from not having to 'scroll past' the Explanation of a comic that they haven't yet had the opportunity to have the Transcript screen-read for them in lieu of the image that means nothing to them. How else to make the Explanation make sense, without effectively (p)repeating every detail of the comic.

However, there are solutions to all aspects of this competing confusion, in all such cases of seemingly bloated sections. They come in at least three different (but also combinable) methods that help keep the poor put-upon reader from being forced to scroll down the Comic page, all of which are already implemented in various comics:

1. Insert the TOC markup at the top, giving easy one-click access to the immediately visible (or at least post-image visible, if that is lengthy), which probably contains also sub-headers at sub-levels within the Explanation.
2. Create a sub-page for the 'very much extended Explanation/Transcript/whatever' to reside upon, and link there. (In the case where the Discussion part is 'too long', it can be (and has been, at times) redone to be just a link.)
3. Use the collapsable-section (i.e. {{cot}} and {{cob}} top-and-bottom markers) on a particularly long 'aside'.

On the other hand, I think I'd say that globally Rearranging the Trivia away from its current convention.might 'solve' some things, but putting so much effort into that and then creating different issues would be unfortunate, and out of proportion to the perceived issue at hand.

And what Elektri said. But I didn't want to just repeat that. 92.23.0.28 22:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Your 3 options aren't necessary because on V22 the TOC is sticky, so it's always accessible. We can add a __TOC__ magic word in the {{comic}} template for V10 users.

My main point is that there are basically 4 distinct sections: the comic image, the comic transcript, the readable prose of the explanation and the trivia (which as you said are not so distinct), and the discussion. The explanation and the trivia are too closely related not to be shown together as they both explain the comic or give information to the reader about the comic. The transcript isn't really supposed to be read by non-blind people, and I would guess it is rarely read, so we're basically interjecting our explanation which something that people don't read. I just think we shouldn't break up the holistic "explanation" of the comic, including its trivia. FaviFake (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

That's the point, though: Trivia isn't explanation. It's trivia. Sometimes some meta-information about the comic (changes/corrections to the comic itself, for example), sometimes some more information about stuff used in the explanation (code, formulas), and sometimes some random facts or factoids loosely related to the comic or the explanation someone deemed important (sales statistics of bikes - but I think I removed that part already). There's no case I'm aware of where the trivia is needed for explaining the comic or where it contains information crucial to the comic's explanation - and if there was I most likely have moved it to the explanation itself (or vice versa, which is what I'm doing usually) . In any case, it's not a hill I'm ready to die on, so if you want to to change it, I won't stop you. But since I can't remember which _is_ the actual order, when I feel the need of a trivia section I usually click "random" until I find a comic with one and copy the order from there. So if you don't change all at once it may happen that me (or other people) will create new trivia sections at the "wrong" place. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but at least it's more useful than a transcript! And personally, sometimes the most interesting information is trivia (for relatively uninteresting comics), because it might, for example, give me more insight into how Randall makes his comics.

And regarding the positioning, there's a really easy way to remember the order! You just need to click on the Editing FAQ link in the sidebar on the left of every page, and the very first frequently asked question on that page is "What is the general layout of a comic explanation?". Once we decide on the best order, that will be updated and the trivia sections will gradually move above the transcript as more and more people become aware of the change. FaviFake (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

More useful to you. As already mentioned, for visiually impaired people the transcript is probably the most useful section at all. To me neither are really useful and I mostly read them (both) out of curiosity. Thus I'm trying not to use subjective usefulness but objective relevance for explaining the comic as an argument. Thanks for tip with the FAQ, though :) Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Logically, for those that need the transcript, it would make more sense for it to appear above the explanation, as having an explanation of something before you know what that something is is a bit odd. What if it appeared first, but was collapsed by default (so was easily moved past by those who don't need it) - how well would that play with screen readers? 82.13.184.33 14:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

That is a great idea! We could make the transcript a parameter of the {{Comic}} template and have it be collapsed by default. @Elektrizikekswerk What do you think about this? FaviFake (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me iff it works with screen readers so that affected people don't need to extend that section first (maybe some wiki-magic exists for such stuff, some meta-information that screen readers can pick up like "read that first" or something). Changing accessibility features isn't something you do lightheartedly. The result should never be to have it _less_ accessible after the change. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accessible {{cot}} is, but they use it very often on enwiki and I'd imagine it's accessible. Someone should double-check though. The title text is already inside {{comic}} so that's definitely not an issue. FaviFake (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Translation!!!

Bringing everyone's attention to explain xkcd:Translation with this post. Do we still want to pursue translation efforts? Do we want to use Extension:Translate in it, or manually translate each page? Is translation still something we want to look into, or have we lost interest? Let me know your thoughts! tori :3^{talk to me!} 18:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Ja monsieur, Δεν credo hynny. Jeg цілковито niepewne. ;) 92.23.0.28 20:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think there would be people willing to translate our existing explanations, and even if there were, they would likely be worse that a simple machine translation made using DeepL, Google Translate, or an AI chatbot.

However, if there were a way to allow users to quickly translate an explanation in a few clicks without having to leave our site, that could work. For example, we could edit {{comic}} to add button that just sends the user to the translated version of the explanation, such as https://www-explainxkcd-com.translate.goog/wiki/index.php/3288:_Archery_Feat?_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp. FaviFake (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Most if not all modern browsers have an translation feature included. If you need a translation, use it (I've met people on other platforms who weren't really aware that the site they're currently visiting wasn't actually in their native language). So: Nein, no real demand, imo. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a way to call a translator API and have a page be automatically translated client-side by, say, Google translate. That way nobody would have to manually translate every page. I know almost nothing about programming so would this be at all possible? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 12:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait, how would one make a client-side call to a cloud service such as Google Translate? FaviFake (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

These were all of my thoughts too and I'm pretty against translating every single page. However, I think that it would be best if we can add a tool or extension to make translation a bit easier for readers not familiar with English. tori :3^{talk to me!} 15:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Without being too dismissive of the issue (I am of course a functional-monoglot, in the typically British fashion, despite both occasional holidays and working abroad at times), but people not familiar with English yet still browsing Anglospheric sites are likely already fully equipped with the tools they need to read such things. Even myself, depending upon which equipment and browser I'm using, know that I can get the option of (or even be given) an English autotranslate of that German or Dutch news-site page that someone in a forum has linked to.

Maybe it's selection-bias, but if Kynde or Favi (to name just two of you) could not speak English so well, they wouldn't have been so prominent here, etc. And they don't even have the excuse of the historic British Empire forcing such a need upon them (maybe Hollywood did the same job, instead, but likely it was just a far better early-years education system).

But I'd be reluctant to have this site say anything like "Hey friend(/Freund/ami/amigo/ffrind), go to ThisTranslationSite and download ThisTranslationApp", either literally or by implication. It's not like it's hard to find something these days whether you're jumping on the latest AI or falling back on something like the OG 'basic' web-translators like AltaVista (is that one even still going? ...dunno). It's not at all that I think it needs to be less easy for J. Random Foreigner, only that it already is unlikely to be hard at all. Perhaps give or take the tendency of their government to do various things to mitigate such potential fraternisation with 'the West'. 92.23.0.28 23:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I'd imagine it would just be a hyperlink or button that opens the page in google translate. FaviFake (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

What I'd imagined was an extension/tool that we could add to the wiki so that a Translate button would be available in the "More" dropdown menu. tori :3^{talk to me!} 16:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

This is also what I was picturing. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Category:explain xkcd

Do we want to move Category:explain xkcd to Category:Explain xkcd? The other explain xkcd categories are Category:Explain xkcd logo proposals and Category:Explain xkcd images. Or should we do the opposite and make all explain xkcd categories lowercase? tori :3^{talk to me!} 22:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The opposite! The name of this wiki has always been all lowercase. It's possible that those categories were created before a sysadmin made the page names fully case-sensitive, unlike Wikipedia. FaviFake (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

 ✓ Done  FaviFake (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)