This is the single-page edition of the Community portal. Conversations are transcluded, so if you watchlist this page you will not be notified of new posts or comments. Instead, watchlist each community portal individually.
This page has an archivearchives. Discussions are usually archived after they have remained inactive for a long time or they are no longer relevant.
The list of the various archives is available at the top of each Community portal section.
Place for ideas and suggestions to improve the wiki's design and organization on general issues, such as adding a feature to the wiki or creating a new character or template. 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.
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.
to confirm, the existing logo will remain in effect for users of Vector 2010? or, do we get the wordmarkless section of the new logo - Vaedez (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ideally the new icon-wordmark pair could be adapted for a square size, but I suspect we'll end up with two different logos until someone develops a better square logo. FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe this is a stupid idea, and I don't know if this violates copyright, but maybe the Wikipedia puzzle globe from Malamanteau could make a good explain xkcd logo. It represents a wiki, in that the puzzle globe is synonymous with Wikipedia, almost certainly the most famous wiki, and it represents xkcd in that it is part of an xkcd comic. 97.121.204.14122:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately the logo is really old and not great. We'd have to upscale it but it still wouldn't look great. And I think we'd want at least one of the characters in the logo. FaviFake (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Before I went to bed last night I was thinking making a version with Beret Guy popping out of the globe; which could combine the wiki-implications of the globe with BG's manic energy, if y'all'd like me to submit that. 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊17:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I really like this idea! I actually had one similar to this, albeit a bit simpler, just a stick figure with a Wikipedia-like globe for their head. I made a sketch of it a few days ago and I'm actually working on making a vector version of it now! I don't think I can share images here yet but I'd really like to submit it once I'm done, though I will say I do find this idea more fun! AltaKarl (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright, here's a full version of it! WeTransfer has been giving me issues so here's a google drive link. The markdown file is for the summary in the description, and it does include content from xkcd/the wiki. (Also wow this took more effort to share than I thought to lol) AltaKarl (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I think I know what you mean, I made it at a higher size and then shrunk it so some weird distortion happened. That's also why I didn't submit the wordmark separately even though I wanted to, since at the size they requested the stick figures were far too distorted. I tried my best to fix it here, but a lot of stuff still looked weird regardless, maybe I could submit it at a higher resolution? AltaKarl (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It looks really good, great job! I think it's really cute and detailed, which is not great for a wordmark, but we could use it on the Main Page! I really love the little characters sitting on the xkcd word.
WikiCueball looks kind of like a zombie to me, but it's cute nevertheless! I don't love the tagline, but that can always be changed or removed since it's an SVG. FaviFake (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I did think of giving them a black hat, but I didn't since it made it less clear and didn't even look that great, so if I were to add more details I'd do it in the rest of the wordmark. Also I added the current tagline as a placeholder, of course if it gets changed it would be the new one, my focus was on the font AltaKarl (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to share a link to it here but when I try to reply it shows me a completely blank Captcha box, so I don't exactly know what to do? AltaKarl (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I haven't permission to upload files so I have stuck my proposal on imgur, if someone could do the admin for me :] The source file is SVG (which imgur doesn't support, happy to provide by another means if needed), and elements are traced directly from comics so there are licensing implications of that UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here's a very straightforward wordmark suggestion, if someone would be so kind as to upload it for me.
Also for anyone who wants it: the font in the xkcd logo is Lucida Sans and there's a very good font of Randall's handwriting here. UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
My entry. I call it "Complicated", and it includes an icon, wordmark, and the tagline "More fun to explain". The idea being the icon is complicated and has to be explained because, just like XKCD, it is more fun to explain. JimMcKeeth (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks nice and futuristic and clean, but I think it kind of clashes with the simple-yet-nerdy sketch feel of xkcd itself. 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊04:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I should mention that I've requested that two specific screenshots of the words "explain" and "xkcd" from two Randall comics be vectorised at Wikimedia Commons, so hopefully we should get a high-quality wordmark in a few days. FaviFake (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I just received the new SVG files from the folks on Commons! It took them a bit more than a few days, but I think the results are worth the wait! Since this discussion was trending towards using an xkcd-esque font, I decided to try to actually create the wordmark from screenshots taken from xkcd comics (instead of the existing xkcd-style font sets, which are less accurate). More specifically, the two PNG images were taken from 1707: xkcd Phone 4 (for the "XKCD") and 2768: Definition of e (for the "EXPLAIN"), and then they were redrawn as vector files by an editor at Commons (I also slightly tweaked them).
I think this wordmark pairs really nicely with UnfixedCuttlefish's icon proposal (which unfortunately is a PNG image, but UnfixedCuttlefish said they also have the original SVG version.)
The editor also created a second version with the words stacked on top of each other, which I think is perfect for the Vector 2010 skin as it's mostly a square:
Oops I found that page & reuploaded my original file as I didn't check the timestamps and thought it had some other provenance. You're too fast for me :P (fwiw the things around the dot are based on the various representations of oracles/visitors from the future, meant to add a bit of dynamism. But I get why you might prefer it without 'em) UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
A rather late suggestion to add, but I've got a draft here of a very straightforward adaptation of the Wikipedia globe logo. Not entirely convinced it's the right direction, as this site isn't primarily an encyclopedia the way Wikipedia is. (Will provide an SVG once I've finished vectorizing & details) UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wow that already looks really good! I love the xkcd style!
And everyone should know that we absolutely still welcome new icon suggestion! We have a lot of really great wordmarks already but we're still not set on the icon. FaviFake (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Better tagline
See the history of the current tagline and the opposition to it at explain xkcd:Tagline.
(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.
tbh for awhile now i've felt like the tagline would benefit from being a link to a page explaining that the tagline doesn't actually think you're dumb, it's meant in jest/sarcastically; i think my vote has to be for one of:
the original tagline unmodified but the text is a link to "here's why this might read as an insult, here's why it isn't an insult" explicit tonal clue-in
the original tagline with [citation needed], where the text inside the brackets is a link to the aforementioned tonal clue-in
rotating tagline with the first bulletpoint as one of the rotated values, or if not rotated, a user preference to revert to the old tagline (i'd accept a usercss method of undoing whatever the new tagline is as well)
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'd be happy with any of the variations on "lucky 10,000" - it's definitely one of the top two suggestions for me. I agree that providing a link to the comic would be a definite plus, as it would be for any new tagline that references a specific comic. As a Brit, I don't much mind the fact that the 10,000 is the result of a US-centred calculation - the point is much more important than the number. 87.115.198.7408:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Tagline: "Explain xkcd: Because jokes are funnier when you explain them." (paigefile) (talk)
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.
I'm not opposed to a tagline that references a specific comic (whether it links to it or not), provided the joke work to some extent without knowing the comic. I do however object to the several suggestions that refer to Randall by name, since his name isn't very prominent anywhere in the comics themselves/on the xkcd website. UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to share a link to it here but when I try to reply it shows me a completely blank Captcha box, so I don't exactly know what to do? AltaKarl (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've noted that the CAPTCHA thing that appears for me here when I post an external link (I'm going to link http://www.google.com here, for no other reason other than just to perhaps trigger this double-check I've got this reply right), the message suggests you need to fill out a CAPTCHA at the top (unlike the prior version of this wiki, which made it a popover) but hasn't actually gone so far as to make me do it...
This might just be because I seem to be happily satisfying the protections enough to not need 'more' confirmation that I'm not an AI/etc. (On desktop, at least. I just can't get past the ticking and reticking of the "Yes, I am a human"-type thing on my Android device, before getting to any explainxkcd page. And I've seen other people mention this, elsewhere.)
If you're only hit by this when trying to add a URL, then you're better than most. And there will be ways to get around this. For example, if I wrote a URL as "htt p:/ /ww w.g oog le. com" then you might be able to post something that could be simply reconstructed by the rest of us. 92.23.0.2820:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
...ok, follow-up to myself to first correct a formatting error, in the above, but also to point out that
If I use the inline 'reply' option, I do get a CAPTCHA text-input box that has no apparent hint as to what should go in it. So sounds like AltaKar's situation.
But if I use the 'normal' page (or section) editing option, I get "Your edit includes new external links. To protect the wiki against automated spam, please solve the following captcha:" at the top, upon submitting the post, and then the (top-of-page) CAPTCHA frame just ticks itself for me and lets me complete the posting.
Whether this information helps either AltaKar or the mods here, is another question. But it might give you some more ideas on how to get around/cater for the problem at hand. 92.23.0.2820:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's interesting, I'll definitely look into it. That actually makes some sense, and yeah IIRC I set it to only do Turnstile when an anonymous editor adds an external link. However, the fact that you can't access any explainxkcd page at all on Android is weird and shouldn't be happening because I haven't set any protections around normal cached pages, tell me more about that? Celene (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Yeah, with further brief analysis, there seems to be different reaction to using the "Reply"-to-conversation point, like I'm doing right now, and using the "[edit]" next to the header as I used to do. This may be behind AltaKarl's complaint. Not sure what the fine-grained control you have over these things, and AltaKarl is not an anonymous editor, even if I am... But, anyway.)
As briefly as I can on the other incident I mentioned in passing (because I've seen it mentioned in far more detail elsewhere, and this isn't really the right place to document it even on this page), if I turn to my Android device (also sitting on the same internet connection, albeit by Wifi) and go to any page on explainxkcd.com it goes through the following process:
"www.explainxkcd.com" "Performing security validation" etc... takes a little time ("it may take a few seconds") for it to be "verifying" to get the...
"Verify you are human" tickbox from Cloudflare, which I tick.
It 'swirls', "it may take a few seconds", tells me "verifying", then...
"Verify you are human" tickbox from Cloudflare, which I tick.
...and keeps looping.
And if I leave the 'tab' around and come back later, it inevitably tells me "Incorrect device time" (presuming it 'remembers' the timestamp of the original attempt to access) until I refresh the page to just start upon the above loop again.
I've stopped bothering coming to this site on Android (used to be particularly handy for two-screen comparison, whichever side I read as I write on the other). But I'm adjusting, accordingly, because I've still got this PC. Conversations seen elsewhere have implied others are not so lucky, perhaps being entirely on mobile-broadband. 92.23.0.2821:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I just added the reply by using the 'normal' page editing option, it was a bit inconvenient so hopefully that issue can get fixed soon, but it's alright AltaKarl (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@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
"because the actual content is more narrow and you can just zoom into it more" Dear god no, mobile screens already chop text into too-narrow segments, the last thing I need is something making those lines even shorter. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Then collapse the sidebars! Or click the "Switch to old look" button! You aren't forced to use the default configuration if you don't want it. It takes just 1 click. FaviFake (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
i debate the objectivity of your "objectively does not work perfectly", while conceding perfection is impossible, as this is a 1172: Workflow situation for me and i've spent a considerable amount of time wrestling with the "modernized" interface for usability reasons which i have not with the "classic". - Vaedez (talk) 10:32, 8 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
Here's something. I'm using the V22 interface currently, but not in dark mode. This is because, when I attempted to switch over to dark mode, I found out that the page displayed on the main menu is completely broken. The background is still in the typical 'light mode' style, but the text is changed to white, making it unreadable. DollarStoreBa'al (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@DollarStoreBa'al, I've updated most of the color tokens, so the Main Page (and everything else) should already be more readable in dark mode by default! The green ones should be fixed once the MediaWiki version is updated. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 26 August4 comments4 people in discussion
The XKCD for Monday 8/17 has yet to be posted, which is unusual. Would it be interesting to track the post time of each comic, and perhaps list all those not posted on the usual target date? -- Dtgriscom (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how feasible it would be to track the time of the comics rather than the date, where could we find that information and how would we categorise comics based on that? FaviFake (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
On this exact example (@Dtgriscom), I think it was already noted on the Comic Header page how the website was officially stating that Monday's comic was not to be published until Tuesday (and, indeed it was, but after this comment, which made it early Wednesday, and I haven't seen what else has been said about that.. or the fact that the Wednesday comic is already out, relatively early... I've been busy all today, only just getting round to reviewing anything 'normal', inclusive of all xkcd-related stuff).
On the separate issue of the 'time when each comic was actually posted', in the past I have scanned through this wikie's page histories and plotted the appearance of comics on explainxkcd, as the best proxy measure for when they were published (and I'm sure you could run down them all yourself, still, if so inclined). This only works for the periods when the BOT of the day is up and running (polling for new comics appearing, then creating the new comic page... bearing in mind that many comics happened before even DogbrtBOT happened, and the whole site was populated in varying degrees of extreme hindsight, so there's a point before which there's no data for this at all), and there aren't other problems (like the gap between old!explainxkcd and this new!explainxkcd where even the BOT couldn't post anything, so we have no such indicator). Unless, say, something like the WaybackMachine is also polling (and archiving, with timestamps) the change in xkcd's 'default latest comic' page, at sufficient resolution (no more than an hour between checks?), then we don't really have any other easily available datum for each comic than this (or Reddit threads about each now comic may pop up fairly quickly after appearing, or find all of Randall's own Twitter/X posts which might now be the most reliable marker).
But I can tell you from general observation that a (still officially) Monday comic, for example, can easily appear very late on Tuesday (GMT/server-time - but even significantly into Tuesday by Randall's presumed timezone), and very rarely is it ever early in the target day (by either server or even Randall time). Though I think that when he was doing a book-signing tour in various nations over here in Rightpondia, and thus working on London (or maybe Paris/Berlin/etc) time he was for a short time fairly consistently publishing during the (correct!) European-ish morning.
Also, it's not unknown for something that is supposed to be Monday's comic to not appear until well into Wednesday (by server time, but definitely even late Tuesday by any decent measure even if Randall was in Hawaii!) yet have been given a date on the 'official' lists that would make it Monday. (In part, because of that, that's why I'm not pointing you at this official page - in fact, Tuesday-rather-than-Monday's comic is still given Monday's date if you hover over it, there... So not particularly reliable, nor does it have a resolution greater than day-to-day.)
@FaviFake: (Having just noticed that I was replying to the version of the page that was before your reply...) I've now just explained where (not entirely reliably) some of the 'when it was actually published' information can be obtained. And I read the request as a desire for something like Category:Comics published off normal schedule which would basically include all comics not listed as being published M/W/F (perhaps by having Tu/Th/Fr/Sa/Su categories as sub-groups, maybe by altering the {{comic}}-template to automatically add "Comics published off normal schedule" like it already does for "Comics from 2026 | Comics from August | Tuesday comics" memberships, assuming that it hasn't matched Monday/Wednesday/Friday. In fact, for some reason I thought it already did this... But maybe it doesn't, and my memory is playing tricks on me. Or doesn't now?
Anyway... TL;DR;, we can at least do the latter, if that was indeed what was asked for (assuming the dates are accurate to the actuality, rather than the 'official' dating). And the research for the former can be done by anyone, if they want to do the same as I once did. (For 'fun'!) 92.23.0.2820:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Now that the moves and necessary software updates are complete, can we please get the colored source editor that we talked about in the discord server? It would make source editing quite a lot easier. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse19:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The logo is still undecided, and I'm still waiting for the Commons folks to decide whether they'll vectorise it. We will presumably switch to V22 once we have the logo. FaviFake (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I would support removing the www but I think we should keep the index.php, IMO it's really bad to have technical restrictions on page titles. Celene (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I disagree that we should keep the "index.php" part. We already have technical restrictions in page titles for numbered comics, and it doesn't really cause too many issues (see for example 3142: (City)-Style Pizza). And this restriction is extremely unlikely to ever cause issues in the first place, as it would only happen if Randall released an unnumbered comic titled "index.php" all-lowercase. And even in that case, we could still be able to get around it by making the first "i" uppercase, or dropping the ".php" part.
Firstly, there's no need to 'remove' the "www.". The server (or, to be precise, domain) owner can set the situation up to accept the non-canonical version of the name and then redirect (ideally with a 301 "Permanent Redirect") that to the permanent one. That can send www.website.domain traffic to just website.domain or vice-versa. In fact, I believe that something of the kind is currently the case, unless it's my browser being smarter than the average browser, perhaps based off of past browsing that I've done. Using http://explainxkcd.com seamlessly redirects, for me, straight to https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page without me having to provide any more information. Which is not a page I normally view, so it'll have to be cleverer than merely looking for my most-visited vaguely matching URL (for reference, I imagine that's https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:RecentChanges with perhaps a few additional ampersanded parameters).
You could even have both www. and non-www. 'endpoints' set up as only logical mirrors of each other (propagation of any changes being made well behind the scenes) and 'both' sites being handled either on the same hardware or on separate machines for all kinds of reasons (load balancing, fault-tolerance, etc). But, whichever way you're doing it, if it's done right there'll be no problem with anyone using the existing "www.explainxkcd.com" or "explainxkcd.com" if the sysadmin is worth their salt. However it's handled at the back end, this is what happens with xkcd.com and www.xkcd.com - both URLs are valid and neither 'redirect' to the other but always seem to serve the same page in response to anything. Meanwhile store.xkcd.com is handled as a 'separate' site, as are/have been other child domains to the xkcd.com fold (forums.xkcd.com and fora.xkcd.com used to be interchangeable).
Secondly, there already is someone out there who maintains the domain "expxkcd.com", for the express purpose of giving an even shorter shortened-URL access to our pages. If you're reading xkcd.com (with or without a slash-number in the address bar), you can quickly edit the address-bar to add "exp" before the "xkcd" and their service will send you to the latest (or already specified) comic as appropriate. for example http://expxkcd.com/1000 sends you (via the 1000 redirect page, to be even more accurate) to land upon https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1000:_1000_Comics automagically.
Just about the only thing thing 'wrong' with that solution is that it sees to sanitise the post-slash as a number, so http://expxkcd.com/3x9 does not send you to https://www.explainxkcd.com/w/index.php?title=3x9 (and hence onward to https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/759:_3x9 via that redirect), but instead defaults to the 'latest comic'. But that's a minor inconvenience in exchange for not potentially trying to helpfully service random non-numeric URLs by sending the possibly rogue end-users/'agents' to all kinds of non-existent pages. (The likes of expxkcd.com/9999 passes the numeric filter ok, but obviously then lands on a page that does not currently exist, so it isn't programmed to check the validity of the sub-page name before the cross-site redirection.)
The shortening of the 'post-slash' element of this site is a different thing to argue about. Except that (as with both www. and non-www. sitenames) bear in mind that there'll be many legacy links to the 'long form' versions of the addresses out there or even within this site's own pages. While we can perhaps at least convert our semi-internalised links to the 'new correct form', we cannot do anything with links from reddit or other random external websites. So whatever is done behind the scenes should absolutely also try to allow the legacy linking. Either with a 301-ish permanent redirect to answer to such page-queries or to make both methods equally valid ways of accessing the same site-data. The mechanics of this should be obvious (or can be learnt about) to the person who set up and maintains the most back-end aspects of the site. Perhaps some quick .config file edits are all that are necessary, to do whatever it is they might decide to do about this. I've not had to work with wikimedia backends, quite so much as I've dealt with domain-end configurations, but I'm making an intelligent guess that there's enough configurability in there to make the world your oyster. But you need to choose the right kind of oyster to open or things might accidentally get a little trickier than expected. 81.179.193.24500:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
if the sysadmin is worth their salt
Lol. The person you are replying to is our sysadmin.
But, yes, of course the shorter links currently work: the question is whether the shorter version should keep redirecting to the longer version, or vice versa. FaviFake (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That was a more general site-agnostic attempted witicism. But also, it looked like you weren't aware of some possible details, so maybe not as necessarily actually that far back in the 'back end' administration compared with perhaps User:Celene might have been, in prepping for what ultimately became the full hand-off from User:Jeff. But apologies if I've miscast your role and my overgeneralised guesses don't mesh with what you're actually asking about. 81.179.193.24522:16, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I really mainly wanted people to vote (or "!vote" as they say on enwiki) on the proposal. Do you have an opinion on whether the proposal as you understood it should be adopted? FaviFake (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
On my initial understanding, No, because one bit of it all seemed very much unnecessary and the other bit might end up breaking legacy link. Probably including the existing URL-shortner method.
If it's just a matter of forcibly re-prioritising the 'primary' choice of hostname and adding a shortcut/maintaining the long-cut to the resource-path then I'll just have to trust you not to break anything unforeseen. 81.179.193.24522:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
the other bit might end up breaking legacy link. Probably including the existing URL-shortner method.
What? I specifically said "All previous links would still continue to work." I wouldn't support this if old links were broken by the change.
I'll just have to trust you not to break anything unforeseen
That's the job of the sysadmin, not of the sysops. I'm a sysop. Celene has handled this wiki wonderfully and I trust they wouldn't break it. FaviFake (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It wouldn't break legacy links if I set it up so that /wiki/index.php/[text] redirected to /wiki/[text] (or even /w/[text]) but you wouldn't be able to start pages with index.php/ anymore (because going to that page would get redirected).
I strongly disagree with this, because why would we do that. also, how do you comment normally, I keep needing to use the edit button, I cant reply to the main thing, and its annoying. 73.132.167.116 (talk) 20:58-59, 27 September 2026 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I don't know what you have or have not been able to try, but do you see a "Reply" link after each comment? Does that not work for you? It will give you an 'in page' editing box (and Preview below).
If it doesn't, then you could manually edit better than you did here. Position it in a better chronological position, use a suitable number of ":"s for indent and remember to make sure you have added ~~~~ to the end of your comment.
In response to "why would we do that", shortening URLs is the main good reason given. I'm still not sure the consequences are fully mitigated, but I've said my piece on that score. 92.23.1.21621:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
On the 'ownership of expxkcd.com' bit, the actual owner of expxkcd.com was at one point on here talking about whether it was worth their while continuing to do so. This was prior to the old-site crash and remake here, but I don't think more than a month or two before that, so it was a point where even the most 'adminest' admin we had wasn't really in a position to do much with it, anyway, and it seemed to settle down to suggesting that if they wanted to keep it going then they should keep it going.
I'm only half sure of what the original suggestion was, and can't remember at all where you'd find the conversation about it. But of course, since the site-transfer, there's right now more of an active admin-base than User:Jeff and the like, who might want to revisit whatever the original offer was.
Though the status quo ante that it was left in is also just as good a solution, so long as you let whatever expxkcd.com does now continue to still work. It's only if you stop it working that you need to perhaps poke the owner (or take ownership) in order to make it work under whatever new system it has to adapt to. 92.23.1.21600:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The state of this wiki already allows for expxkcd-style urls. Whenever I need an explanation, I edit the original xkcd.com/<number> url and add "explain" in front and it does forward me to www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/<number>:_<title>
Support as the constraints are pretty minimal compared to the increase in legibility of the URLs. Also, huh, the expxkcd links shouldn't have the xkcd icon, I'll fix that asap! Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
All the existing URLs have /index.php in them, and the change will involve setting up redirects to automatically remove that from future URLs (so somebody visiting a legacy URL gets sent by their browser to the nice new short one). Which is perfect for all the existing pages. But it would mean that nobody in future could create a page called just ‘index.php’, because trying to visit it would remove that from the URL. However, this isn't a wiki about PHP or web-hosting; there's no need for it to have a page called ‘index.php’. Even if Randall created a comic called that, the page name for it on this site would be ‘1234: index.php’ or similar, with the number before it. So it's fine. Smylers (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do not support: I don't see why shortening URLs would make people more likely to believe they can prepend "explain" to get to the page; I believe most people would also add the "/w" part.
Almost nobody types links, and the shorthand already exists for those who do.
Also, since link shorteners exist, people don't necessarily trust shorter links; I'd bet people would trust "wiki/index.php" more than "w".
The short links would look better on devices too small to display the full long links (like mobile phones), but most of them would also not be able to display the full short link.
In conclusion, I don't think this change would have much impact on anything. I wouldn't hate it being implemented, and I probably wouldn't notice, but I see it as a waste of time. 87.139.131.209:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support - Clean URLs reduce cognitive overhead and make it easier to get to content that we care about. If index.php becomes an actual comic that Randall makes, because of the specific change that this wiki has made, then that would be legendary by itself and I would love it even more. ChunyangD (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support but can we configure the wiki url where you only have to delete 'explain' from the URL to redirect to the xkcd comic of the same number??202.1.85.24508:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support, I like the simpler URL. I agree that the index.php exception is a tiny downside, as I agree it would only happen if Randall released an unnumbered comic titled "index.php" (and even then the remedy is simple). I don't know if there's any technical obstacle to this change, I defer to those who know about that. Sophocrat (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please replace Cloudflare bot fight mode with something else, like anubis.
Latest comment: 17 July6 comments4 people in discussion
I understand that “View History” is very resource instensive on old MediaWiki versions. However please instead of using CloudFlare Bot Fight Mode/Super Bot Fight mode, use Anubis because it is way easier. It took me 30 seconds of CloudFlare pages to log in, because it discriminates against weird browser configurations.
Using Anubis works fine for the Arch Linux wiki, and it uses FLOSS javascript and does not discriminate against weird browser configurations. (most bots use chromium anyways.) Anubis acts as a reverse proxy, that you are supposed to have another reverse proxy on top of. (I recommend caddy, but any TLS terminating reverse proxy works.)) -- Velocifyer (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2026 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I just wrote a long support for Anubis instead of the Cloudflare solution, explaining that I see no problems with it (unlike as stated on Reddit) in various other places I frequent, whereas this system seems to not be working on Android (with latest versions of Chrome or Firefox both tried), right now I'm on Windows (Firefox) and it seemed to work, however (going via the same internet connection).
However, on posting it immediately went through (re-)verification and then brought me back to the Edit. And backing up did not give me a chance to re-post (a trick sometimes I have needed to use when Anubis has decided it needs to do its daily/weekly renweal at some time inbetween going into an Edit and Submitting it (the only real occasional problem I've had with that system).
Now, I'm rewriting this, just to see if I can post anything at all, leaving out some of the old post and adding these new observations. (Will take a Paste Buffer copy in case it seems necessary/possible to try again.)
I will repeat my thanks for actually getting this fixed.
I'll also repeat that the "500 changes, 7 days" setting in Recent Changes says "No changes uring the given perio match these criteria." - but won't go into my fuller analysis of this, right now. (If I can actually post, at all, I can better go into it more fully under a new Section Header.)
I don't have Bot Fight mode on, I have Managed Challenge on, though, for certain pages. I'll try to see what I can do. Celene (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yep, it does work (under Windows), at least that time. (I just had it re-request verification, right now, so I had to re-paste what I had precautionarily paste-buffered.)
Hpwever, for additional reference:
Android and Chrome browser (latest version) wants Verifying every time I try to get into an Edit page, and sometimes on other pages. It's a 'Verifying Loop', the tickbox wants ticking, so I tick it, it whirs, then it goes back to the tickbox needing ticking, repeat ad infinitum. (Occasionally it gives me a "Why is this veritication taking so long?" page.)
As a non-Edit-page example: from the Recent Changes page (that displayed, at least with only 50 changes - see below), I chose a "diff" link, and it went into the Verifying Loop. I backed out and the Recent Changes page now gave me the Verifying Loop. Had to revisit the Main page to even get back to Recent Changes.
Android and Firefox browser (latest version, again) goes into "Performing security verification" briefly then seems to return to the page that I wished to Edit. (On a couple of occasions, it's crashed the whole browser.)
Windows and Firefox browser initially seemed ok, but seems to want it (reverification) more frequently than I think is necessary.
Noting that I went to the Troubleshooting page for the Verification check, very early on (under Android) and did the 'direct' test-check and it was perfectly happy. Not sure why it is less happy with explainxkcd, though I think I've worked out that the settings may have been made to make it even more Verifying for any page with "edit" element in the URI (I can see why that would be a choice), so maybe the site-specific Verification requirements has been set far higher than default? I'm just guessing. Maybe can be toned back? Not sure if that'll help the Android situation, for me.
I just had the issue that the Cloudflare thingy is "eating" edits when switching to preview mode. I made a lengthy edit on some comic's explanation and before submitting it I wanted to check if it was alright in preview mode. Clicking the "Show preview" button moved me to cloudflare and after returning my edit was entirely gone. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Made some changes to cloudflare config, should hopefully be much less aggressive now. Additionally, it should stop eating edits (it's now only on for GET requests) and should be entirely disabled for logged in users. If there continue to be problems, please let me know. Celene (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Recent Changes problems.
Latest comment: 13 July1 comment1 person in discussion
So... going to Recent Changes gives me the expected list (by default, "50 changes, 7 days" and not-bots as a separate default. Switching (without changing anything else) to 500 changes tells me that there are no results at all, and that's how it stays as I retreat back down through 250, etc, until back to the default 50. Suspect that it's due to technically not even having 500 changes to list (in the current incarnation, perhaps ignoring pre-migration examples), and looking for the last 500 changes gets a "not found" error that triggers the "not found anything" error.
Additionally suspect that it's an issue that will vanish once there are 500 changes to be found. With or without the limitation of 7 days, or any other of the available limits, encompassing/excluding the search-set. So it'll probably work properly by next week. But, again, FYI. Especially if it's something that will still need active fixing. 92.23.5.22919:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
New Users situation?
Latest comment: 16 July2 comments2 people in discussion
I think the old-site protections against spam-account usage are a bit more permeable now. See User:Geoffreydixon15, and one more of today's new users has a similarly suspicious "Hey, here's a link!" pattern.
All new users, so far today, also have name-patterns that look like random bot/patsy-concoction, like was never completely stopped, previously, but at least included a wait-and-post-count threshold before they could start laying down user-pages (and thus often never did).
But it's not like I can be entirely sure, just going by long experience, without wanting to test any of the limits myself. I now seem to have more difficulty making genuine edits, so I just hope that spammers aren't having a reduced amount of oversight. 92.23.5.22923:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 September10 comments5 people in discussion
Hi everybody, I've made some improvements to the editor. We now have WikiEditor (the bar on top of the editor) and VisualEditor (this is only enabled on content pages, but you can switch between source and visual editor as you please).
Some topics for discussion:
Should we add CodeMirror? This would enable optional syntax highlighting in the source editor, which some people may want
Should we add DiscussionTools? This might make discussion easier by adding reply/subscribe UI
What non-default configurations should we add to the editor improvements to make it more suitable for explain xkcd?
I'd like to throw my hat into the ring and vouch for CM. To reiterate what I said on the Discord: it's negligible extra burden on the server (serving an extra static file that weighs in at just over 230 KiB compressed) and fully optional for the client. Not to mention, with wikitext being such a non-obvious syntax, highlighting helps a lot.
I won't argue for VE until the server load situation is fully under control. I haven't used DT extensively (requires MariaDB/compatible afaik, I usually deploy w/ SQLite) but it will probably reduce the number of Please sign your comments with ~~~~
Never mind, apparently this is a lie. StructuredDiscussions (fmr. Flow) was incompatible with SQLite, and is now deprecated with DiscussionTools as a replacement, which supports all databases (SQLite schema here) Maybe I should give it a shot. Less said about explain xkcd, of course. Eunakria (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
CodeMirror seems like an easy win here, it makes editing wikitext a lot less painful to read. DiscussionTools also absolutely sounds worth it given how much of this wiki runs on talk page discussions. To quote Sodium on the explain xkcd:Discord, "I'd appreciate DiscussionTools. I've gone 'hmm I maybe should write a comment' but then gone 'ah it's too much work' and moved on". I bet most commenters feell the same way; I certainly do!
On top of all this, I think it'd be worth switching the default skin over to Vector 2022 as well. I've been using it here for a while now and haven't run into any template bugs, everything renders exactly as it should. And it's so nice! The reading experience is much better with the sticky table of contents, the shorter line lengths that are much easier to read, the sticky header, and the larger search bar.
And if anyone tries it and decides they prefer V10, remember there's a huge bolded "Switch to old look" button right in the sidebar so you can switch back in 1 click. Worth remembering that most of our readers are logged out or never touch the preferences, so it's best if we make the experience as welcoming as possible to them, also to attract new editors! The needs or preferences of power users shouldn't determine what the average readers sees.
Given we're already shaking things up with the editor, this feels like a good time to make the switch and get everyone used to both changes together. FaviFake (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's a "switch to old look" link, somewhere? Can't see it, but I'd rather like to regain some of the old-style features/functionality from the original site's Recent Changes page, and maybe, I'm thinking, any retroskinning would help do that. 92.23.5.9217:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was actually curious about this since I distinctly remember it being a thing. It was removed in 2025 but it's still a thing in REL1_43 and as such in the copy of V22 this wiki deploys. It's no longer present on WMF wikis, since I guess they're officially comfortable with V22 being the new default for everyone.
With that, it's entirely a matter of taste. Both are available for logged-in users and you can choose whichever skin you like. It goes without saying the wiki in its current state is not suited for V22 dark theme, but not many templates need to be modified. Mostly it's just swapping out old colors for CSS variables. This userstyle goes a long way toward making V22 dark theme usable (although the proper solution would be to modify the actual templates that use inline styles):
Nah, I definitely don't think it's "entirely a matter of taste". V22 is objectively more accessible as it adheres to modern web design standards such as the sticky header, sticky TOC, and especially the much shorter line length which is proven to make reading easier. And I'm willing to bet most explain xkcd readers don't have an account, so they won't be able to choose their preferred skin. Clicking "Switch to old look" is an extremely minor burden to place on power users in favour of giving our readers a vastly more accessible and usable web interface, imo. FaviFake (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I've added CodeMirror, Echo, and DiscussionTools.
Also, while investigating why DiscussionTools didn't work on the Community Portal, I discovered that in Template:Community links there was previously illegal HTML in the template, I've now fixed this and DiscussionTools works now. However, it doesn't work on the transcluded discussion sections in the main content pages, probably I will just have the discussion section point toward the actual talk page but I have been feeling very under the weather today and have a huge headache, so I'm not doing that right now.
I honestly kind of prefer V10 to V22, although it might be possible to configure V22 to preserve the things I like about V10 or to create a custom skin? Will look into this further. Celene (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Actually—thought about this some more and realized it was mostly the absence of a logo that bothered me and in all other regards I prefer V22. Unfortunately, our current site logo and all logo proposals are all designed around V10, and we'd need to update it to V22. V10 logos are a single square image, but in V22 you need an icon section (square), a wordmark section, and an optional tagline, (both wordmark tagline are much wider than tall) meaning that we'd need to separate the imagery and branding. Unfortunately, none of the proposals at Category:explain xkcd logo proposals work well for this, but it might be a good idea to announce some sort of logo redesign contest in the coming future. Celene (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Could it be attempted to host a temporary second instance with Vector 2022 enabled, and see how much work is required to make most pages work (page layout, other things)? Bonus points if both the temporary and main instance can share the same database, but I'm not sure this works well with MediaWiki. 82.67.98.7215:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strange loss of multi-diff information from Recent Changes
Latest comment: 23 July5 comments3 people in discussion
As can be seen in the History (as it is now, and even after changes you can scroll back), and also in the (single-edit) diff-page, the prior edit (in the same minute, by the same user, who was making a minor correction to their addition of the latest comic information in the Cursed Connector context table) did not appear in the Recent Changes list, which typically merges multiple (same-day) qualifying changes. e.g. in the line "13:55 explain xkcd:Community portal/Technical 3 changes history +2,033 [Eunakria; FaviFake (2×)]"
That's with the default Page-Style applied. Simply copied (with no attemmpt to add most of the formatting/etc) from the no-style version of the page, we have a line:
...i.e. the basis for the 'summary line' and then the component lines that get rendered hidden, unless and until further investigated/expanded upon by one of several different means.
Not that it wasn't easy enough for me to work out that I was viewing the Cursed Connector page having been re-edited from a prior edit, but... I should, by all rights have been getting a "2 changes" diff-page. In a similar manner to the "3 changes" currently correct (at least until I post this, when it will become a "4 changes" one, at least...) for this page's Recent Changes.
I have no filters set. And also it is not a Bot edit anyway, one of the obvious reasons to exclude an edit. And, as can be seen by Favi's double-edit here at 13:55, it should not be deciding to compress same-user-same-minute edits, even if it would have been a proper thing to merely ignore the first instance (rather than make it equivalent to a "2 changes" automatic double-diffed link) and present it as being an edit chain starting from an edit point that the Recent Changes should have also encompassed (i.e., given enough room in both limit= and days=, then everything back to the midnight of the day concerned).
Not quite sure what the basis is of this strange behaviour, or if it has caused me any problems in the past (by being given a truncated history of the "latest n changes" to a page that I'd have expected). I don't even know that it is not just a perfectly normal variation of behaviour that I have just been entirely oblivious to in all other cases. But it seems to be 'wrong' and not working as (previously?) advertised. But I document my findings here in case anyone else has either a similar concern or an easy answer regarding this issue. I'm also not excluding the possibility that nobody cares/considers it worth commenting about. Or that (for some reason that may or may not also be considered 'strange') it just isn't happening to anyone else anyway. But FYI. 92.23.5.9220:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for not replying, to try to clarify it for you. I did not even see this update in the Recent Changes list. Which might have been my fault for just not seeing it, or else might have been another incarnation of the very issue I was reporting.
The issue at hand being that the Recent Changes list seemed not to have been displaying all the Changes.
I noticed this only when reviewing an apparent single change and it became obvious that the 'diff' was indicating that it was a re-edit of a prior change that should have been included in the diff-page I would have followed.
I don't know enough about the in-depths mechanics of the wiki backend to fully diagnose the possible cause, or possibly work out if it is my error in adapting to the 'improved' site. (Not sure I like this new inline editor, but... I'm giving it a go anyway!) However, from Celene's response below, it looks like I gave enough information for it to make enough sense to someone who does.
Specifically it's due to a weird interaction between a recent update to MariaDB and MediaWiki where writes get dropped sometime and then not retried. This is theoretically on MediaWiki to fix but they have not done so yet, luckily there is a compatibility setting that fixes this. Celene (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 August2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know anything of the decision behind this, but noting that Template:template is now redirecting to Template:tl, after one of many refinements. (On Wikipedia, it is indeed Template:Template link, hence the short-form name of the link, though it has for a vast majority of the time been just Template:template here.)
I would have thought that the practice should instead be that the shortcut term redirects to the full page, for all the obvious reason. But maybe I'm not party to some new thinking about this. Is this, then, something that needs to be done with everything else (e.g. {{Citation needed}} -> {{cn}}, or one of the other initialisms that may be prefered)? Or is it something that should be switched again, in this case? 92.23.10.24823:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 August6 comments4 people in discussion
This will be of interest or concern to almost no one, but:
Doubtless as a result of the recent big rehosting shift, all articles on explainxkcd.com appear to have different MediaWiki page IDs than they used to.
For example, our article 3250: Flag Design used to have MediaWiki page ID 30166, but it's now 5110. You can see the page ID for an article (among other metadata) by clicking on the "Page Information" link under "Tools" on the left sidebar.
I discovered this while updating the cross-site links on Wikidata. For example, on their page Q140129320, the "explain xkcd ID" identifier shows the old MediaWiki page ID of 30166, not the new ID 5110.
Presumably the point of tracking MediaWiki page IDs like this is that, if the title text of a page changes for whatever reason, the page ID won't. Here we have sort of the opposite situation, in that the titles have stayed the same, but the page IDs have all changed.
But with that said, I'm not sure that's why Wikidata tries to record MediaWiki page IDs for its cross-site links such as "explain xkcd ID", after all. In this case, at least, it doesn't actually use the page ID in its links — it uses the page title, so the old link still works. (Actually, many of the older links have issues, for a different reason, which I'll be correcting at some point.)
I hasten to add — I probably should have opened with this — that I am not complaining here; I am not reporting this as a problem that needs to be fixed, or anything like that. This is an almost-invisible implementation detail, an inevitable consequence of the recent migration, of concern to probably almost no one. I'm reporting it here just in case there are any other oddballs out there who might want to know. —Scs (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've noticed this as well. When navigating to page that contains a [[Special:Diff/]] link, the target obviously doesn't work and it send the user to a completely different diff. But I don't think this should be changed; almost nobody uses diff links. FaviFake (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, I have used diff-links. But usually for "oh, by the way..." Talk items or similar that have needed to address my own or others' specific edits (why I did something, or looking into why someone else did, usually). In the manner that I've seen others do it, 'cos that's probably where I picked up the habit! They have probably looong since become unnecessary comments only of historic interest, so I'm absolutely not concerned about them needing to be 'corrected' in hindsight.
Perhaps, though, if I'm remembering the circumstances correctly (haven't actively checked), some more permanent usages of {{diff}} may be in comics updated after publication/similar, where the diff-template may have been used to point to the exact-same-name-but-since-overwritten image of the old version for a Trivia link to what the pre-change version might have been. (Not applicable when the new image was uploaded as a "v2" different file, of course.)
It would be fairly simple to just check for every page with a usage of diff and review them all... with Comic Explanation pages as the highest priority. Most of the Community Portal sub-pages are likely to have many smatterings of "hey, <this happened>!" by people (like myself), but probably don't need trying to work out what they should now be (might be fairly impossible, anyway). Those sitting in Comic Talk and User Talk pages are probably not worth bothering with unless anything stands out as seeming important enough to not only dig into the correct number but also to deal with the long-standing issue that was highlighted. - In short, I also don't expect very many edits to arise out of any review of this situation. But maybe a handful can and should be, even if not the exact ones I'm imagining will arise. 92.23.10.24818:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for tipping me off on this, it is *possible* I could find the original page IDs and do something about that, but it seems like it would be a complicated operation. Celene (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 27 August26 comments5 people in discussion
What it says on the tin. Not sure if it's just a V22 issue or anything but contribution scores aren't showing up, displaying the wikitext instead. Look at Tori's page if you need an example. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse14:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Celene never added in ContributionScores because it was too costly on the website to constantly update it. They'll be able to explain their thinking process more in depth than I can, but that's the gist of it. tori :3talk to me!15:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not that my opinion holds sway (after all, I obviously am excluding myself from the whole thing), but I was always uncomfortable with 'scores' of any kind. There were very obvious cases where new(ish) users had discovered that there was a public rating system and then actively sought to rise high in one or other placement system. (Or even derive their own calculated 'score' based upon average amount of change per edit, I think, in one case.) Basically, it's Goodhart's law.
Not to say that nobody would have sought to make useful contributions, in order to buff their existence, at least subjectively. But just see how much useless chatter (like this) that I'm likely to come out with even without some nebulous 'score' to aim for. ;) 92.23.0.2819:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hmm... Is there a way to hide the scoring for editors who are not extended-confirmed? That way only the most trusted editors would be able to see them. Although that would leave out, among others, you, but it should work for most. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse20:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
That does not really make much sense. And generally I agree with the IP; why do you think ContributionScores would benefit this wiki? FaviFake (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I also do agree with the IP. Goodhart's law should probably be avoided, I was just trying to find a balance. But I'll relent on this one honestly. I wanted it back because the lack of it breaks a few user pages. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse22:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not really a problem! I am more than happy to remove the code from my user page if needed and we can either keep other user pages as they are to preserve them or simply remove the problematic code. This "broken"-ness is quite easy to fix C: tori :3talk to me!02:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is there any way to set up a faked 'static' serverside response to {{#cscore:<...anything...?|<...any option, or none...>}} that would just make something like "I have made {{#cscore:MyAccount|changes}} changes!" render as "I have made ''an unknown number of'' changes!"? With a suitable choice of words, it could cover almost all prosaic attempted uses of the output. And maybe some other situations too.
Although that would still break more complicated #math-based calculations that include this, and it'd be hard to know whether a fakeout value might be acceptable (such as 0, 1 or 999)... and which value would work (consider avoiding making anyone dividing-by-zero, or otherwise being plainly ridiculous).
...I mean, right now any page still trying to give (or use) this information is just fairly obviously broken but doesn't really matter if the end-user affected isn't active/concerned enough to fix it. But if other people are also bothered about how random strangers' pages are 'letting the side down' then a low-effort fake-fix might let them fail a little more gracefully. 92.23.0.2821:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm considering two things right now:
1) This would fix the issue of old userpages having broken syntax on them, but
2) This effect can easily be achieved without cscore.
I'm leaning 'no' on this at this point.
I'm wondering if it would be okay to edit people's userpages like this, replacing cscore calls with these effects using wikitext. This wouldn't require the extension. Any thoughts about this? If we think this is a good idea we could get it done fairly quickly. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse00:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The approach I might take as an admin, to honour the original intent (and sanctity) of a User-space page, but 'unbreak' them is:
Comment out the current #cscore usage (making it obvious that it can be easily restored), with as much or as little of the surrounding context as is inexorably linked to it.
Insert any replacement text/numbers that you might placeholder the now-commented part.
Add to that (or, if there is no new 'that', where the 'space' is) some [suitably-titled tag] to make it obvious it has been officially interfered with, and perhaps where anybody interested can find more information about it. (Perhaps a new FAQ subsection can summarise, without all this discussion..?)
But I would stress that it ought to be Admin-level (not just someone like me, going all guerilla-warfare on every instance I might discover through searching), and with a generally-upheld consistent policy of how much 'surround' gets cut out and what replaces it (far more intelligently decided that just globally replacing with "an unknown number of", as I had suggested for the procedurally-fakeouted version, above), Plus any "FAQ#Why has #cscore been removed?" would be something that needs better short-sharp (apologetic?) explaining than reading through anything already here.
But that's just how I'd do it, if it was in my power to dictate it. (And I had neither decided to ignore it and let it stay broken or tried forcing the fakeout method. 92.23.0.2801:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think that commenting out the #cscore usage and adding reasoning in my edit summary would work the best. @Celene can you get onto the FAQ? You have a lot more technical knowledge on why CS was removed, and I can comment them out once you're done with that. tori :3talk to me!02:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Community scores can be added back pretty easily on a technical level, it was initially removed because the default behavior was causing major problems for the site (it would regenerate the table every time someone viewed it), but it's trivial to make this a cached behavior. It looks like the primary reason for removing it now is mostly social? Celene (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
They probably have more important things to do, and these templates aren't used almost anywhere, so there isn't really any hurry. I guess you can delete them and then restore them after or if #cscore comes back? Or just leave them there. FaviFake (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am happy to add back #cscore from a technical perspective but I don't think I have any special knowledge from a social perspective of whether or not it would be good to keep? If the other admins want me to add it back I can and otherwise I can also not add it back. Celene (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Personally I like it because it helps me keep track of my stats and I like stuff like that, but I also know there are some opponents due to the gamification of editing. IMO, I would like to add it back. tori :3talk to me!22:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Links using fullurl: redirecting to an unauthorized mirror
Latest comment: 18 September18 comments14 people in discussion
✓This issue has been fixed.
@FaviFake and myself have noticed that several internal links using the magic word {{fullurl:}}, among which until recently the main link in the Explanation for Improvement site notice, will occasionally target the equivalent page on the unauthorized mirror adhigami.com instead. We don't know how this mirror came to be, who owns it, or why {{fullurl:}} (presumably through the site variable $wgServer) sometimes switches to it.
Due to phishing risks, we advise all users to double-check the URL when editing, commenting, or especially logging onto their accounts. We will update you once more details are known or the situation is resolved. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yup! Chaotic Enby masterfully edited our site's global javascript so that it blacks out the page when it is loaded on those domains. This is a temporary solution until we actually fix the links on this wiki. FaviFake (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Cache poisoning" here refers to tricking the software into saving an incorrect calculated value, and serving it back to other users. Specifically, that bug report was about the software calculating the value of $wgServer dynamically based on how the page was accessed, rather than pulling it from static configuration. Crucially, the result of that lookup was written into the cached version of the page, so if Eve pointed evilsite.example.com at your server, and accessed a page, she could trick the software into saving copies of the page with "evilsite.example.com" substituted into the text, and serving them to other users.
From what I can see, that specific bug was fixed in MediaWiki 1.34, and this wiki is currently running 1.43.9; so presumably it's not exactly that issue, unless the software was extremely out of date and has just been updated? - IMSoP (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if this is anything to do with this, but a couple of times earlier today, on my tablet (which I can't even visit this site with, any more), doing a Google search for an xkcd title to get the comic number and xkcd.com URI had my browser tell me the tab had crashed (reloading it took me back again to the prior Google search that tab was doing, before I searched). Several variations of the search with xkcd mentioned repeated this, searches for random other things did not.
I find it hard to believe that the contents of search results (that would have included explainxkcd hits) would have conveyed any dodgy business direct to my browser-tab, and it'd be a totally different level of cache-poisoning if it's pushed into Google results, but it's not something I'm ruling out either.
Thank you. I noticed this a week or so ago and assumed it was a legitimate mirror, but I didn't re-create my account there or attempt to login. I'm glad that people saw this for what it is. Student Driver (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to TVTropes, I believe that it's supposed to be a little extra precaution to warn the unsuspecting impending clickee that TVTropes Will Ruin Your Life. (Right now, I can see four TVTropes tabs showing upon my browser's header, in amongst other things, and I now there are more of them if I scroll the tab-bar sideways.) It's a particularly strong generator of extended (and branching!) wikiwalking sessions.
Another option would be to use favicons next to the links – I've contacted the staff of both websites to get permission to use their logos for their links, as TVTropes's logo is under the same license as the rest of the site, and RationalWiki's logo isn't licensed at all. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I sort of get the "use an icon marker" idea for various external sites. But text-based icons embedded in text can cause their own potential confusion, as can be currently seen in a link to C which could arguably be mixed up with a link to something like The CW. Except that "CW", itself, will now look like "CWW", of course!
The request to get the "W-letter in a jigsaw piece" picture rendered as the 'hint' might be better but... consider how small the icon is, and thus how few pixels you have available.
I presume the TVTropes logo will be just the "TV-letters with a lampshade hanging", if you go ahead with that. Maybe slightly easier to rough out a version of. I'm not sure that the "Brain within doubled square brackets. The brain is difficult enough, even if the four distinct brackets can be reduced to the minimum pixels.
Edge (zero pixels padding?),
Just 1 pixel for first riser,
1 more pixel for the 'hooks',
1 more pixel for gap between brackets,
1 pixel for next riser,
1 pixel for hooks,
1 pixel for space (if not kerned away thanks to the curved Brain edge?),
enough pixels for a brain (less overlap as immediately above/below),
(Maybe) 1 more pixel each for space,
Then 1 more pixel each for closing hooks/riser/space/hooks/riser.
That's a minimum of 10 pixels. As rendered on this particular machine (YMMV), the current "W" for Wikipedia takes up 14 pixels (antialiased, but a viable non-antialiased version may be no different, to get the same look just rougher looking). To look a similar size, the [[Brain]] would have room for no more than four pixels of width for the 'Brain matter', I expect, even with the kerning in mind.
Of course, the true icon being used is likely not 14 pixels wide. In fact, as I easily discovered, it's non-raster .svg image that is apparently being officially rendered as 12px wide. Despite how it appears to be 14 for my default view (which I screenshotted and examined in detail within an image editor). Automatic antialiasing as well as designed-in shading/colouring in strategic edges can probably create a better image than a harsh monochrome image with a single bitplane of display depth. But it's not exactly going to be easy to artfully create a comprehensible glyph that represents a W-JigsawPiece, the lampshaded-TV or the brain-in-the-[[]]s. The best you can probably hope for is a half-decent clump of pixels that mark out something special in a vaguely recognisable way, and that people will learn to recognise as "Oh, that's a <foo>-type link!" from sufficient hovering/following and discovering the details. And I'm not sure it's worth all that bother to try to do that for every possible example, or even every well-used destination.
(For starters, archive.org might deserve its own, due to the number of times old and dead (or older versions of live) pages are now linked to through that. A four-columned Greek acropolis-like frontage... actually far easier to artify, I think, just had a private go at a 12px-wide conversion (of the logo without its lettering) and I think it's recognisable. At least once you know it's supposed to be archive.org in some other way.)
But, despite having found you a better example to try for, I'm still not sure it's a necessary development. Anybody who cares about where they're going are going to keep an eye on the bit of the browser where the link you're about to go to pops up (as defined by the particular browser). Any random link like http://www.example.com (or as alternate embedded text) gives a generic "this is going off this wiki page" glyph. Cross-wikiproject links have generally been treated the same as links internal to the wiki and so have been unglyphed (perhaps depending upon how linked!), while those wiki-style places like 'tvtropes' and RationalWiki that have honorary wiki status have been made marginally different looking in an unglyphed way.
About the only good reason to insist upon glyphing each and every link is to make a seaofbluetext a bit more obvious as not one long link that's a sea of blue text. But, as just discovered, perhaps you need a suitably-simplified Wiktionary logo too, if you're going down that route?
Just pondering aloud, though. I'm not particularly arty myself (I'm not particularly skilled in creating it, I just more know it when I see it), and perhaps have too much of a technical approach to this issue to be taken seriously in this regard. But the few immediate thoughts I had, unfortunately not easy for me to express succinctly in word, seemed perhaps worth mentioning? Maybe not, in which case ignore me. 81.179.193.24513:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this looks much better and isn't as disruptive as a letter. Thanks! Personally I'd prefer having no icon at all but I can understand the demand to see where a link leads to at a glimpse. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Mobile version of this website
Latest comment: 15 September2 comments2 people in discussion
This site does not appear to have a mobile version when I access it on my phone, so I have to zoom in to see text. Is this something others experience the same? And if so, has there been discussion around introducing support for mobile browsing (which is likely nearly half of visitors at this point)? Sdkb (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: Sunday at 21:239 comments3 people in discussion
I was trying to make Template:tqq as a shortcut for tq with quotes, but the latter isn't working correctly. The q attribute seems to be broken: no quotes. Hence, after some exasperated edit summaries, I have created a work-around by hardcoding quotes directly into tqq. Can someone see what the issue is, and please give me some pointers on template programming so I don't royally foul up templates a third time? Thanks, 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊22:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
What you actually created is called a WP:Wrapper, not a shortcut. Shortcuts are created using #REDIRECT [[Template:Talk quote inline]]like this, while wrappers are normal templates that just interact with other templates themselves. Let me know i you have other issues! FaviFake (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but ideally it should use tq's q attribute, and {{tq|q=yes|quote me, quote me}} results in quote me, quote me, when it should give quote me, quote me. Maybe I'm just being nitpicky... 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊02:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC) modified 02:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because if we use __NOTOC__, then the TOC disappears from the Vector 2022 skin. We want it to appear on v22 but not on the old skin, vector 2010, and that is the only way to do that. FaviFake (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
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!
This page has archives. Discussions are usually archived after they have remained inactive for a long time or they are no longer relevant.
Latest comment: 22 August3 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
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..!). 172.69.194.9521:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
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.
Latest comment: 5 August16 comments11 people in discussion
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
New series/category: "Obvious analysis results"/"Genetic testing"
Latest comment: 6 August1 comment1 person in discussion
I was looking through the doctor Ponytail comics and noticed that at least 4 comics have a really similar premise and ending:
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
New category: Alcohol
Latest comment: 6 August1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 19 August1 comment1 person in discussion
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 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)
Latest comment: 26 August11 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
(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:
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.
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.)
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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? 82.13.184.3314:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Translation!!!
Latest comment: 27 August19 comments5 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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'alConverse12:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 :3talk to me!15:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
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'. 92.23.0.2823:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned above, most browsers (at least the most popular 4 - Edge, Chrome, Firefox, Opera) already have built-in translation functions. So, what's the point? Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's what I realized too after your comment. Because of that, I'm withdrawing my backing for wiki-side translation. If no one has objections, I'll add a notice onto the Translate page saying that the page will be preserved as an archive of our history. tori :3talk to me!15:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the museum's talk page should be reserved for discussions relating to the museum like others, but maybe we could have a subpage dedicated to archiving discussions that impacted the wiki in some way. I will say, this discussion shouldn't be given special treatment imo. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse19:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Subpages are a great idea! We can also have a section in the Museum page that lists out the "exhibits", with links to each subpage. We can also have redirects from the original page to the subpage as to preserve editing history and the page. tori :3talk to me!19:37, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 26 August3 comments2 people in discussion
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 :3talk to me!22:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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!
List of current admins
These users currently have the administrator status:
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)Reply
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. 92.23.2.22820:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 November 20253 comments3 people in discussion
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:9CF921:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
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. 2.98.65.821:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 May21 comments8 people in discussion
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)Reply
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). 82.132.238.4916:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
"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. 82.132.238.4917:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. 81.179.199.25319:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.) 82.132.238.4917:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.addictTalk to me!03:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 :3talk to me!16:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. 81.179.199.25314:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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. ;) 82.132.236.20913:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's
HELP!
Latest comment: 11 July5 comments5 people in discussion
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
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)Reply
"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).
(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)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)Reply
Seeking edit-war adjudication.
Latest comment: 23 July2 comments2 people in discussion
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. 92.23.5.9200:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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. 82.13.184.3308:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Add autoconfirmed permissions
Latest comment: 2 August2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
@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)Reply
News Feed
Latest comment: 8 August2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 August3 comments2 people in discussion
Randall recently updated 3284 to replace "reign" with "rein". Can someone who has file overwrite rights change the current image to the new one? Thanks! 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊05:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! It seems someone else already uploaded the new version. I think you're also able to overwrite existing files, if I'm not mistaken.
Latest comment: 21 September28 comments6 people in discussion
On {{notice}}, the inputs for {{{bgcolor}}} and {{{bcolor}}} are prepended with a leading #, which saves a bit of space when typing raw hex codes, but prevents using dynamic CSS variables to make the notices readable in dark mode. Since it would be way too time-consuming to rewrite the templates to require a leading #, I suggest adding new optional variables {{{bgcolorvar}}} and {{{bcolorvar}}} to support CSS variables (using Codex color tokens) if needed.
I don't have the permission to create a {{notice/sandbox}} to test it out (sorry, created my account minutes ago to check out how y'all were doing on the TWAFI... I mean TWEFI front), but my suggestion would be to swap the second line of the template for:
Omg, are you Chaotic Enby from enwiki??? (if so, could you make a dummy edit on enwiki for proof?) Welcome!!!!!!!! How did you find out about this wiki?
And yes, the templates aren't really coded that well. I'll probably look into this in the coming days, but I don't have a lot of free time between managing TWEFI, enwiki, XFDcloser testing, PAM updates, and my real life. If you're interested I can temporarily lower protection for templates that use HEX colour values so you can update them yourself! (Or place them in the explain xkcd:Sandbox and link to the revision, whatever suits you!) Otherwise i'll try to find the time in the future. FaviFake (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yep, that's me! Followed xkcd for a while and went to the site occasionally, got very excited when seeing the main page with the EFI template. I remember being the one making it into this style with Codex icons on enwiki, really like how you made them into template parameters for ease of access. We have quick references of Codex icons in a few places so it could be feasible to add icon params too if we want to have them match the tasks in some way.
Would love the protection to be lowered so I can work on some dark mode compatibility shenanigans. Looks like there hasn't been a need for a template editor group yet, so that workaround should do! Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh my gosh that is amazing! Two xkcd fans who've previously worked together on PAM are admins on two different wikis and both spearheaded virtually the same TWAFI project on both wikis! I love this!
I've said this on ewiki but i'll repeat it here for transparency: You've been promoted to admin but unfortunately the right expires on sept 5! I'm sure we would love it if you wanted to remain as an admin and help the project with your expertise. Or, at least I know I would!
Thanks, that's amazing! Three wikis technically, I've also worked on resurrecting it on frwiki! I'll go work on the templates, really happy to help the project in the future although I can't make any promises on whether I'll be active on a day-to-day basis! Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Omg I'm so happy, I need to calm down! One of the friendliest and most knowledgeable enwiki admins wants to help our own little wiki!!!
Up until two months ago, our most active admin had so little free time that she only logged in when we asked for immediate help on her talk page, so activity is the least of our concerns. We haven't yet defined a process for promoting new admins, but we don't really need one for you; anyone who is uncertain can just look at your work on enwiki! Anyway, thanks for the help. I'll go to bed now, in case you need me I'll check in tomorrow :) FaviFake (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If this is about me...sorry...😭 I've been trying to edit more and do more maintenance but it's really difficult with everything I have going on in my life :C tori :3talk to me!00:00, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nonononono! I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about our poor Kynde, who was basically forced to respond because the wiki was breaking down. You should never prioritize this wiki, real life is much more important! For a few months I took a break as well and basically only logged in to check my watchlist once every two weeks. Please do not feel pressured to participate or do anything on the entire internet, ever, if it affects your real life in any way shape or form.
Now that Celene is supporting the wiki, this is the best time to stop editing! You can take a three-year break and we will still be here, stronger than ever, I really think you should do it! Mental health is immensely important and an explanation of a funny comic is one of the LEAST important things in the world. I've been in a similar relationship with the internet on the past. You've already helped this project immensely, please please take a years-long break if you need it, I'm serious!! Nothing would make us happier than knowing you're not here because you're focusing on yourself. FaviFake (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wow, glad to see you here, CE, and thanks for the template help! By the way, I tried to port over a few (supposedly) simple templates on en.wiki but it got tough (see link); any advice? 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊17:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
We don't need to write new ones, but a lot of the templates that you two have been trying to port rely on modules the way they're currently written, so we'd need to import a few modules from enwiki (well, their latest version before 13 October 2023, for licensing reasons). Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
On a slightly related note, @FaviFake, are you OK with me trawling through the custom link templates and undoing the custom backgrounds? Right now they're unreadable in dark mode (link for reference: AutobotsRockOut). 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊01:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It appears that the changes to the {{tvtropes}} (and possibly {{rw}} ...hang one, let me just testthat... yep, that too) makes it look bad (dark-blue background, red (visitied) or blue (unvisited) text?) in the 'lightmode' default.
Oh Deo gratias, yes! Many thanks! (I actually tried to start this, but I gave up since I hadn't noticed the css was independent.) 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊22:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Surprised I'm the first admin to respond. Pinging @Theusaf who blocked the same IP user for a week in July of this year.
I had stumbled upon these odd edits on my watchlist and was in the process of writing the block summary when you sent me a message on my talk page. The fastest way to reach me is to send me a message on my talk page, I'll get an alert on my phone. It does seem to be automated, as it reverted the talk page message you sent me in less than 10 seconds. FaviFake (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also, I'd just like to point out that if you had created an account, you would've been an admin here for years, and you would've been able to block the IP address yourself. By not creating an account, you are effectively making the wiki more vulnerable against vandalism. Something to think about. There's still time to register. FaviFake (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I may well have been. As might others of a similar vintage. Yes, we two have talked about this before, I can confirm. But you've also said as much to others. (And this edit of yours is fun to have read. I know we've talked directly about identifying me by my parentheses, before. And so I think you assumed that thing was 'my' contribution... but that was someone else! And, honestly, I also I remember thinking that the phrasing of that could have been improved. :P )
With great power comes great responsibility, however, and I've had my fill of that,, without going into details. Some minor frustrations aside, I think I'm happy here on the periphery 'doing what I can'. Even if that means not doing what I can't. It's a balance.
Also, be careful about seeming to offer such an open-ended invitation. I know you don't mean it literally, but if any new user suddenly pops up and claims to be 'me' and offers to take up a fast-tracked route to being trusted enough towards earning Admin status..? I'm telling you now, that aint gonna actually be me.
I'm sure there are some other good 'random IPs', but of course you should continue to use your best judgement about anyone 'suddenly deciding' to register, not encourage any kind of personation. 78.151.45.22820:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, of course. I meant that, if you had had an account for years, then in the switch we'd probably have promoted you.
And yeah, I suspected that the edit wasn't yours. You usually don't edit the explanations themselves unless you have a good reason to. And your edit summaries are less straightforward, and you would've previewed your edit and noticed that the code tags were not placed correctly and caused a display issue.
Latest comment: 21 September7 comments2 people in discussion
I just undid a number of edits (the originals currently seen within the contributions page for the IP concerned) that seemed to eventually reduce to just using the Random Comic link and shoehorning the 'spoiler' for the film Sixth Sense in, regardless. Although it might have at least started by looking for existing spoilers/mentioning of sixth senses. I'm just mentioning it here in case it makes it easier to keep an eye on this same sort of thing in future. 81.179.192.8520:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah ok but did you know Bruce Willis was a ghost the whole time?
Notifications, in the same way as @FaviFake might attract you, don't have any meaningful existence. But it doesn't matter too much. And I imagine that someone else will spot the next bit of mischief before me, if it still happens. I just happened to be here first in these cases.
Anyway, that Bruce Willis was a ghost the whole time explains a lot. I mean, those 'terrorists'/vault-robbers kept trying to shoot him a lot and pretty much kept missing him. But how he managed to drive a flying cab, I don't know. Perhaps something to do with his skills in being a retired (extremely dangerous) CIA operative? 81.179.192.8523:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Notifications, in the same way as @FaviFake might attract you, don't have any meaningful existence What do you mean? i got an email because you pinged me, does the email not exist? FaviFake (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm a Bruce Willis ghost, as far as the wiki is concerned. How on Earth would it ever be able to email me, or any other IP, like it can email you?
On the other hand, I really don't like 'pinging' other people unnecessarily, so maybe my invoking that above to make my point was a bit crass.
Look, don't worry about it. It was just in response to your (ironically!) parenthesised query about the situation. But the other guy did say sorry, and so far hasn't reneged on that apology so... Between us, we're just making the world right one or two (or a dozen) edits at a time, I think we can agree?
...any additional failure for my own attempts at humour to pierce a bit of a pop-culture desert will have to just suffer the fate of having tumbleweeds as the biggest result. 81.179.192.8523:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@81.179.192.85 No, I like pinging people as well! @81.179.192.85 If you can't receive notifications it's even better because it means I'm not annoying anyone! @81.179.192.85
i dont know if this should go on Technical but you cant edit talk pages when blocked. despair.
-someone from pluto who was blocked earlier this september for putting stuff on a blank page and making 111 redirect to that. im sorry. mostly. 129.222.193.22516:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The reason for that is because vandalism often occurs on talk pages, so we'll usually block vandals from editing at all, given their track record. Is this an account that got blocked, or an IP address? tori :3talk to me!16:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
.png)
