Place for ideas and suggestions to improve the wiki's design and organization on general issues, such as creating a new category Be sure to check whether your proposal has already been submitted. 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.
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? 216.145.71.13021:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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:
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. 216.145.71.13022:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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... ;)81.179.199.25322:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
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. 64.189.140.807:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
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. 64.189.140.6100:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
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. 82.132.237.10810:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I, unlike OP, have done quite a bit more preparatory work for the potential category.
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.
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.
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. 81.179.199.25320:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
two account-holders said they approved of the idea. if this isn't proper discussion, what do you want me to do?
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? 82.132.237.1714:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm... not a lot of thought put in here, before the mass rejig actually happened. The same person who is explicitly a Math(s) teacher in some comics is also explicitly not into mathematics in at least one other (and instead has a Linguistics degree under her belt). Wish I'd said something, now, but I was already involved in the above discussion and didn't want to cause any more fuss than I had to. Oh well. Done now. (Or at least the 'easy' bit, but I suspect the other page-merging will be happening soon enough.) 81.179.199.25316:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with User:FaviFake. The only recurring characters in xkcd who represent the same character across comics are Black Hat, Danish, Beret Guy, and technically White Hat. Miss Lenhart can do different things, and arguably it is possible for her to work part-time. But since xkcd doesn't have a fixed timeline, like in 1139: Rubber and Glue, 1753: Thumb War, or 2869: Puzzles, where people like Black Hat and Ponytail appear as kids, so it is possible for here to work as a news anchor in the past, if not part-time. The Miss Lenhart page says Cueball is used more commonly as a news anchor, and this could be because Lenhart works part-time. User:YZ10021:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I gave just one case, of several, where - similarly to "Rob is a Cueball, but a given Cueball isn't necessarily a/the Rob" - an aspect of character tied heavily to Miss Lenhart isn't one that agrees with all Blondies. My perspective remains that Miss Lenhart (when established as such) is notably as much a separate entity from generic-Blondie as Mrs Roberts is another, and we previously we had this decent distinction of definite-Misses Lenharts, definite-Mrs Robertses and all other generic Blondies that were neither suggested to be (at least part of the time) mathematics teachers nor hacker-moms.
Then there's the separate issue, in that same Meteorologist comic, that the Blondie/whoever (like Cueball) clearly isn't even really a News Anchor (part time or otherwise), and actual TV meteorologists/weather-presenters (even budding/probationary ones, who should have started off by being actual meteorologists who then are seen as suitable candidates to dip their toe into being a media personality) tend to be entirely different people from the journalists who present the news. The lesson is that justifying a positive truth from the the comics is tricky, but inconsistencies support various negative truths mmore practical
In the end, there's pretty much as much logic to consider all (ex-)Blondies to be Mrs. Roberts, instead. Or, as a better combination of matches, some are Lenhart and some are Roberts. (Or, a better-match/lesser-mismatch, would leave at least some Blondies as still 'only' a generic Blondie) Though the decision has been made now, so I was only here to point out some of the various problems invoked but apparently not even considered. 81.179.199.25322:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
In 1985: Meteorologist, Lenhart has a Linguistics degree and she teaches grammar in 3229: Grammar. She isn't limited to just math, like how she teaches science in 3132: Coastline Similarity. Besides, being a math teacher and a mathematician are not the same thing. User:YZ100 4:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
You are of course begging the question, by insisting that the person/people with a Linguistics/Grammar background is Miss Lenhart, then using that as further proof as to why you are correct to say they are all the same person. Try not to do that. 82.132.221.15713:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 29 May2 comments2 people in discussion
Let's make a page for What if? questions we all have and take some of those questions to send to Randall? This may also help revive the blog articles. Does anyone have any other ideas? YZ100 4:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
He doesn't really work on any projects like What if? 2 or What if? x10 anymore and the blag was discontinued. He works on the video series these days. But the whole point of What if? is for him to answer our questions. User:YZ10022:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 31 May4 comments3 people in discussion
As a new user myself, the tiny section on why you can't make a user page yet is vague and annoying. Few edits? How many? Who makes you a trusted user, what is the process, etc are questions that many people ask. Just saying it would be nice for a better explanation on how to become a trusted user. Thanks :) Black Hat's Hat (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not that it is my decision on how to approach this, I (as you can see from my non-username status, being far from being an official 'trusted user') prefer the vague nature.
If you define a line, then people will delibretely push right up to this line. Either in this kind of case where someone desires to get the enhanced abilities (for good or ill) and will do the exact minimum necessary to get to that point, or for limits of behaviour (such as being told "you may call your fellow forumites <beep>, <boop> or <censored>, but using <nastier word> is an instabanning offence>").
The actual criteria for page-creation abilities is not that difficult to achieve (and have been explicitly mentioned elsewhere), but is not just a single threashold. I might liken it to "it's better to travel hopefully than arrive", in that until the very point that someone realises that they have accomplished the ability to create new pages (any new pages, not just their own userpages), you have probably eased yourself into how the site works and appreciated its general construction and will then only create new pages that they have some amount of genuine justification for wanting to create (to save others having to clear up after some "Template:Cool, I can create new pages!" splurge, or similar...)
Ok, so it's not exactly a guaranteed method of getting a more considerate userbase, but it's better than automatically treating it as a 3246: Speedrun and missing out on the more general atmosphere there is to be had here.
Also, it doesn't at all stop you getting User Pages set up, right now. You just need to mention that you'd like them - as you maybe just have done - and any pre-established user can decide that they're happy to create them for you... if that's all you want to actually create, then you might never do any more and just continue to edit exactly as you're currently editing.
The point at which you realise that you can create new pages (you hit a redlink, by accident or curiosity, and get given the option to unredlink it ...whether or not you then go through with it) can then be just give you a fuzzy feeling and a realisation that you've 'arrived'.
...but, again, this is just my view. Having seen many new users, and come to admire many of those that stuck around and have done great things. I would gladly see you as one of them, even if I would advise against undue impatience on the way to getting there. Having checked your activity, I will say that you're not too far off, but I'll not enumerate exactly how distant that point will be... That'd be like setting up a finishing tape and encouraging you to recklessly sprint for it. ;) 81.179.199.25320:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 31 May5 comments4 people in discussion
In another conversation, I said: "Why is Black Hat saying it? He's a classhole, so he knows a better way to insult than just saying "It's 'cause you're dumb." It would make more sense if Danish were saying it, as she was never given to be a classhole." I stand by my statement. Either delete it or make Danish say it. YZ100 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It does actually makes sense. It is humorous. It definitely has a long history, with there being comprehensive discussions about this ten years ago, and longer.
But that's just my interpretation. Is the proposal that it 'just' be deleted (I'll let you work out how), or is that that you replace it with something else (ditto), whether that's someone else saying that, BH saying something else or a completely new scenario altogether?
There's been talk about this about 12 years ago. Check explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals. TL;DR is that this was the original motto decided on by the original creators of this blog back when it was a blog, and was moved over to the wiki when we made the migration to MediaWiki. I would not be against changing/deleting it, but this is certainly something of great significance in regards of our history and requires a clear consensus within the community. tori :3talk to me!01:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 minutes ago57 comments31 people in discussion
SUMMARY: We are changing 3 things:
The icon: we strongly recommend an SVG logo so that it can scale correctly. However, if you can only create a PNG/JPG file, the image should be square and 100×100 pixels.
The wordmark: this should be a landscape monochrome image (wider than it is tall). This is a graphical version of the name "explain xkcd". Please remember that the name of the wiki is all lowercase (or all uppercase), so do not capitalise the "e" or "xkcd" differently from the rest of the wordmark. This should also be an SVG, with a width of 124px height of 32px.
The tagline: this is shown below the name of the page. It is currently "explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb" (Learn why). You can propose a new tagline in #Better tagline. ㅤ
The tagline can also be shown underneath the wordmark, although this is optional. This is an example of a Vector2022 compliant logo:
We're planning on switching the default skin from Vector (V10) to the modern Vector 2022 (V22), but unfortunately, our current site logo and all logo proposals are designed around V10. V10 logos are generally a single large squarish image, which is why we have the name of the site in the logo, but in V22, you need an small square icon section, and then a separate wordmark section for the site's name.
This is also an opportunity to change or redesign the site's current tagline, "Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb", which has been controversial, since you need to create a tagline image regardless.
As such, we are now hosting a logo redesign contest! For more on the logo's design requirements, see wgLogos.
Please upload any logo proposals into the category Category:Explain xkcd logo proposals with the format "proposalname_[icon/wordmark/tagline]". We strongly recommend an SVG logo so that scaling can happen correctly. For example, you might name a wordmark image "AbbyProposal_wordmark.svg". If your proposal contains a full icon/wordmark/tagline set, give them the same proposal name, but you can also upload individual components if you want.
Click this link and click "Browse...". You can upload individual components or the entire icon/wordmark pair if you want.
If you don't have an account or you don't have permission to upload files, upload the proposal at https://wetransfer.com and leave a comment below. We will upload it for you!
In "Destination filename", give it a name like "NAME_OF_YOUR_PROPOSAL_icon/wordmark.svg".
In "Summary", paste this text exactly: [[Category:Explain xkcd logo proposals]]. You can optionally also describe the proposal.
Click "Submit". If you did it correctly, it should appear in this gallery.
You just have to add "[[Category:Explain xkcd logo proposals]]" to the bottom of the page.
I should note, though, that the icon on the new logo will be much smaller than the current logo, so your proposal doesn't really work. Ideally you want to avoid having the sitename in the icon, because that's for the wordmark. Celene (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I assumed icon meant the one that went on the top left of the site...what's the proper name for that? And is that one even up for replacement? Morpheus (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The proper name is "icon", yes, it's up for replacement. As I said, the current site logo is designed for V10, which means that it's a large squarish image with the name of the site on it. This doesn't work for the V22 skin, because it's designed for the logo to be much smaller and to have the name of the site be in a separate "wordmark" section next to it.
(I don't have problems with the "'cause you're dumb", actually. And noting that I'm sure that you're not needing to ask for taglines to be SVGed and uploaded, but I can work something out for me and the contributor above if you want.) 92.23.5.9219:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I kind of like "explain xkcd: [citation needed]" since it's the main gimmick of the site, but I'm also inclined to keep the original tagline Celene (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
i also don't have an issue with the original. however, if changing it is inevitable, i would favor the [citation needed] joke, but i think it would work best as a suffix to a sentence. (e.g. "It's 'cause your dumb.[citation needed]) -- somefan (talk | contribs)23:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would actually prefer "It's 'cause you're dumb.[citation needed]" over the status quo ("It's 'cause you're dumb.") with the rationale that it's much less likely to be taken the wrong way (I don't mind the original tagline either, but I can't deny it comes across as hostile, because other people have complained about it before) and exemplifies our character as a community.
I think I mentioned my preference previously in the Discord. Really, there's nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by tacking a {{cn}} onto the end of the tagline. Eunakria (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I'm not on the Discord, but I agree with you here. While I don't dislike the current tagline, and I like the idea of a rotating tagline, if we're changing it and we can't make it rotate, we should absolutely do this.
i'm now leaning towards this as being a good modification! i was thinking of something like that, but i can't see any how it would make the statement be more likely to be taken correctly (if also meaning "nonhostile"). my interpretation is that this just adds insult to insult (LOL), as [citation needed] is jokingly used by Randall in his books and blog when declaring obviously true statements, which i find funny :) -- somefan (talk | contribs)04:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some What If? articles do use [citation needed] in this fashion, notably what if? 27 ("Death Rates") which subverts the prior use of the joke in What If?
[...] This means the death rate among humans who were not members of The Beatles is significantly higher than the 50% death rate among humans who were.
I expect this significant[dubious–discuss] fact[citation needed] will pave the way[citation needed] for a great deal[dubious–discuss] of important[citation needed][dubious–discuss] research.
Also, you'd be facing an uphill battle trying to make the assertion that "people are stupid" in the context of xkcd, insofar as 1386: People are Stupid.
In the vein of this, something along the line of <Comic Title>[citation needed] may be interesting. I'm not sure this would work very well as a tagline, but maybe there is room somewhere for something that updates depending on the current page you are on. DarkAndromeda31 (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
What if we made the tagline rotating, like it is at mezzacotta.net? (example: here, then reload the page a ton) That way we can get every single reference and gag in there. If not, how about this tagline: "Explain xkcd: It's because you're not as smart as you're supposed to be.[citation needed]" 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊04:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
A rotating tagline would be fun, but we need a few good options. I've done something similar before, specifically a rotating tagline in the footer of Skin:Citizen with all of the options being mediocre puns. I don't know if that fits the vibe of this wiki, which already has its own sense of humor in article text. Eunakria (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm minded of the "... histories of X an Y" postscript to Dwarf Fortress. Or, closer to home, a 2243-like way of 'mixing something up' dynamically, with but a little thought for the possibilities (possibly multi-path, rather than simply permutational). 92.23.5.9222:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, the wordmark (which will be displayed in V22 instead of a standard square logo) and optional revised tagline (to replace "it's 'cause you're dumb") are two separate things we want. Eunakria (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This was one of the ones proposed in the original proposal; the main objection I saw was that no one knows who this 10000 is. (I like it though.) 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊00:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is the best one yet, but it's not perfect because you still need to have read the comic in order to understand it. However, it's certainly better than the current one. FaviFake (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I support this one as well. I think that the current tagline also requires some prior knowledge of Black Hat's classhole nature to not be offended. Capycapybara (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Couldn't agree more with this as a suggestion and with the supporting reasons others have given - much more in tune with the ethos of xkcd and knowledge, in my opinion.
Not necessarily relevant - I get that this is an American site - but to British English ears, calling someone "dumb" I think is more unpleasant than it perhaps is to US residents. Although we obviously understand the American idiom, used in British English, it's more likely to retain its original meaning, and therefore equates people who cannot speak with stupidity. 87.115.198.7414:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I like this one! Addressing FaviFake's point that you need to have read the comic for it to make sense, maybe the tagline could link to the comic, like so:
My main issue with this one is that the “10000” in the comic specifically refers to Americans, while explainxkcd has an international audience. 84.226.147.17920:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I like the ideas of rotating taglines and of course "lucky 10,000." A proposal based on [1], "Majors in the Universe". A second suggestion might be based on [2]: "Both physics and stamp collecting!" Ideally, we'd have a tagline that truly represents the wonder of learning. Maplestrip (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
An xkcd for everything, and an explanation for every xkcd
Overanalyzing stick figures. For science!
Overthinking webcomics so you don't have to
Robert'); DROP TABLE explanations;--
(Here are ones I added:)
Randall understands his comics best.
It's 'cause you're not Randall. (Someone else said this)
Someone is wrong on this page. Help us fix it!
Not everyone understands xkcd.
Romance, Sarcasm, Math, and Language: Explained! (I found this in another discussion, can't remember which)
Explained in Ten Hundred Words.
Because jokes are funnier when explained. (Someone else said this)
What if the internet suddenly didn't exist?
Also, we should change the icon because Black Hat wouldn't say some of these. YZ100 (talk) 5:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I love "You're one of today's lucky 10,000" and "It's 'cause you're dumb [citation needed]", here are some more basic ideas for taglines I've thought of:
waking up the sheeples
enriching your search history since 2009
because science is hard
complex solutions to simple problems
with questionable moral (yet scientific!) values
0 days since last cool bug sighting
overengineering, overthinking, overanalyzing (or overdramatizing, if that's a word)
It seems most of these proposed rotating taglines reference a specific comic, so I think we should add a link to the comic somwhere in the tagline. For example, if someone doesn't know what "waking up the sheeples" references, readers should be able to get to the comic. But I don't want the link to be too prominent. Where should we put it? FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Or maybe a hidden link? The text could remain grey but become underlined if someone hovers over it. Or it could not even become underline, but still change the cursor! So people who know the reference who don't hover over it won't notice a link, but the people who want to know more or to select it to put it on google will notice that their cursor changes.
For the taglines, those sound like good ideas. As to Template:Talk quote inline, I tried to re-create it, but as you can see it currently just dumps the code out:
<templatestyles src="Talk quote inline/styles.css" />{{#invoke:MultiReplace|main|1={{#invoke:Error|error|Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)|tag=}}|2=^:|3=:|4=^;|5=;|6=^*|7=*|8=^#|9=#}}{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=|preview=Page using Template:Talk quote inline with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | i | italic | q | quotes | title }}
@Lettherebedarklight As I explained in EX:CPT#Editing improvements (WikiEditor + VisualEditor), we are not changing the skin for everyone, we're only changing the default skin, which will mostly affect logged out users to improve their experience. As I explained in that discussion, you prefer V10, remember there's a huge bolded "Switch to old look" button right in the sidebar so you can switch back in literally 1 click. Worth remembering that most of our readers are logged out or never touch the preferences (or even know there are preferences they can tweak), so it's best if we make the experience as welcoming as possible to them, especially when all it takes to go back is 1 click. The needs or preferences of power users shouldn't determine what the average readers sees. FaviFake (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@FaviFake Can you add support for mobile devices? Explain xkcd appears uncomfortably wide on my smartphone, and Reader Mode removes all edit functionality and some of the formatting. HaruruChanDesu (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
if so, i would very much prefer this to not be automatic-detection (or at least, have a user preference to disable it while logged in) as i tend to hate mobileized interfaces and find them harder to navigate, and the 'switch to desktop mode' toggle doesn't always work even though i have it globally enabled in my browser - Vaedez (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It certainly does not "work perfectly fine". According to the WMF, Vector 2010 didn't match the expectations, was cluttered and not intuitive, and didn't highlight the community side, among other things:
The desktop interface did not match the expectations created by the modern web platforms. It felt disorienting and disconnected. Navigation and interface links were organized haphazardly.
Readers were unable to understand the purpose, terminology, and concepts of available tools such as the main menu, user menu, and page tools.
Editors found the hierarchy of the navigation to be confusing for newcomers.
Editors and other contributors wanted easier access to tools they used frequently.
Editors expressed interest in having fewer but more prominent ways to begin contributing.
There was clutter that distracted users from focusing on what they came for. It was challenging for readers to focus on the content. New editors were unable to use their intuition to perform simple tasks not related to reading.
Too much information density and navigational elements on the page made it difficult to focus on a particular reading or editing task.
Readers found it difficult to navigate the page and spent a lot of time scrolling.
Readers found it difficult to search for information that is relevant to them.
Readers wanted to have an easy way to view the table of contents throughout the page.
Character count per line was more than three times the recommended value.
A very small percentage of readers understood how wikis functioned. Many readers were not aware that the content they were reading was written by volunteers and updated frequently, or that they could potentially contribute as well.
If you don't like it, that's a different question, and you can just click the huge bolded "Switch to old look" button. But it objectively does not work perfectly. FaviFake (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Vector 2022 doesn’t work on mobile devices, either. The lack of support for small screen widths makes makes reading Explain xkcd an ultimatum between straining your eyes to read tiny text and scrolling left and right and left and right and left and right and left.
Works better than Vector 2010 iirc but will probably want a distinct default mobile skin (and subdomain) like Minerva Neue Celene (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Vector 2010 actually has smaller non-collapsible sidebars, so V22 is marginally better to use on mobile devices because the actual content is more narrow and you can just zoom into it more, and most buttons are slightly bigger so they're easier to hit. But yes, a mobile-native skin is of course much preferable, but that doesn't have anything to do with the skin used on desktop. FaviFake (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If anyone cares, I subjectively prefer our current skin (Vector 2010) over Vector 2022. Then again I can change it on my settings so it's not too troublesome. 189.159.39.22805:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
New series/category: "Obvious analysis results"/"Genetic testing"[edit]
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)Reply
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.
.png)
