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.
Latest comment: 17 October138 comments48 people in discussion
SUMMARY: We are changing 3 things:
The icon: we strongly recommend an SVG logo so that it can scale correctly. However, if you can only create a PNG/JPG file, the image should be square and 100Ć100 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. ć ¤
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. 7amiĆ¾moi Ā· š¬ Ā· š17:35, 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
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[dubiousādiscuss] fact[citation needed] will pave the way[citation needed] for a great deal[dubiousādiscuss] of important[citation needed][dubiousādiscuss] 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]" 7amiĆ¾moi Ā· š¬ Ā· š04:20, 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.) 7amiĆ¾moi Ā· š¬ Ā· š00:54, 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 ā10000ā 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 doesnāt 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
While I am personally okay with either skin, I don't think Vector 2022 "highlights the community side" either (if I understand what you mean). That facet is basically identical between the two skins. As an example, the only skin I've seen that IMO even attempts to highlight that side is MinervaNeue (which ofc is mainly designed for mobile, so isn't the best choice for the default desktop skin). 90.212.73.16223:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
On that point, I don't think we've announced it yet on the wiki: we (and by "we" I mean Chaotic Enby) are actively working for improving support for mobile devices! Right now we can't set MinervaNeue as the default because some templates aren't optimised for it, but our end goal is to set it as the default on mobile. Of course, as everything else, this can be turned off. FaviFake (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's my goal indeed! I've started rewriting and containerizing Template:comic/sandbox into subtemplates to make dynamic display more practical to implement for thinner screen resolutions (e.g., putting the middle button on top of the arrow ones to not have either one extra-long bar or very small buttons). Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest making sure that the 'mobile' style also renders well for non-thin mobile screens (e.g. my tablet being held in landscape mode), without having to choose "Use desktop site"-style option on the browser itself to force it back to normal. But as the site no longer loads at all on my tablet, I've both got no remaining skin in the game and I couldn't test it and tell you if it is or isn't working correctly. So merely leaving this as a testing suggestion to you, if you're not already doing it. 78.151.45.3117:31, 17 October 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
The padlock has been superfluous for decades, and the puzzle pieces are incredibly distracting. Can we please just get rid of the padlocks (or replace them with the far more comprehensible outgoing link icon as in http: links) and put the puzzle pieces in the mouse hover tooltip string before the word "Wikipedia"? Just look at how terrible they make the text of today's explanation look. We shouldn't punish readers because editors were contentious about adding more wikilinks. Liv2splain (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Liv2splain Thanks for your message! We agree that the padlock icon was useful a decade ago. It will be replaced with the "outgoing link icon" that's currently only used for http:// links.
Regarding the Wikipedia icon, that's more complex. We wanted to make it easier for readers to know where the links they're about to click will send them, as it is very hard for readers to distinguish between links to other comics and Wikipedia links. The same link label could send users to a what if? article, a comic on this wiki, or Wikipedia. I agree that the current puzzle piece icon might not be the best solution, but if we remove it readers will have no idea where a link will send them unless they hover over each one. FaviFake (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Another option could be to use a different color for external and internal links ā most of the former will point to Wikipedia, so that's a safe assumption, and we can leave the outgoing link icon for non-Wikipedia external links. Wikipedia itself uses the external link color for all outgoing links, but doesn't use the accompanying icon for cross-wiki links. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I personally prefer the icon over a different color, but the icon as it is right now looks pretty ugly (too detailed); all I see is a puzzle piece that has a vague white (dark mode) scar on it. It doesn't seem too obvious it's a Wikipedia link. 7amiĆ¾ = moi.__init__(t, c)06:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
It will depend a lot on the interactions between the resolution the screen and size of the font.
As mentioned elsewhere, if a simple superscript "W" is depicted in very few pixels (as was the initial image-hinting), then a puzzle piece outline that is approximately the same size and has to contain a recognisable "W" is going to be a tall order. It is defined as a vector graphic, so if you zoom in on the text then you get to see what the 'splodge' is (and I have absolutely no arguments about how nice that splodge looks, when sufficiently zoomed!). It's once you start thinking about how it looks when it necessarily uses subpixel features that the problems with it become more obvious.
For example, for me, the following demonstrates the necessary pixelation that I see, including the precise hex-shades of grey in use.
Pixels shown
Source image
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
D5
80
E0
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
CE
5F
F4
B8
AB
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
3B
C4
FF
FF
84
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
3E
54
FF
FA
80
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
E0
49
56
72
A6
2E
FF
EB
77
96
8F
87
81
F5
F6
F6
F6
C0
41
FF
FF
F1
FA
FF
FF
FF
E6
BF
DD
DB
C1
F6
F6
D9
D9
2E
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
EA
B2
F6
EC
7E
E3
22
FF
88
B9
94
E4
92
9F
9B
FF
FF
C7
C8
F6
57
E3
8B
24
FD
CB
89
8E
AF
7F
54
E3
45
37
4E
F6
E4
50
FF
FF
EA
FF
FF
62
EC
1E
C3
6E
BB
D0
8B
A7
F6
AE
57
FB
C4
FF
FF
FF
AC
4F
31
5D
E1
C6
CC
F6
B2
F6
C5
16
30
09
DD
FF
FF
FB
3B
C3
64
FF
F3
77
90
54
F4
F6
F6
F6
45
A1
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FA
FF
FF
F4
EE
9C
EA
F6
F6
F6
58
9A
FF
FF
85
23
30
5C
CC
FF
FF
FF
9C
EA
F6
F6
F6
33
C4
FF
FF
81
F6
D0
45
3D
FF
FF
FF
87
F4
F6
F6
F6
27
F8
FF
FF
A3
C7
F6
C1
67
FF
FF
FF
78
F6
F6
F6
E8
00
00
13
36
30
C3
F6
69
3B
40
5E
65
A0
F6
F6
F6
F6
E6
BE
B8
B8
E1
F6
F6
D8
B0
9B
B8
E8
F6
F6
(The 'outer' F6s are a remnant of the background I took the original screenshot from, the one 'internal one may or may not be a full pixel that's actually exactly in the middle of the jigsaw 'hole', rather than somehow antialiased that way. I could have redone it with a white/other background to work out which are true F6s and which are just the background leaking through, and this might also have shifted some of the other edge- values by being drawn as partly-opaque over the slightly non-white baseline background. But it's not far off.)
I mean, you can see the original art, but it's not so very obvious, unfortunately, and doesn't really show well on my display. Without being familiar with the original and/or zooming in on the page (or, above, relying on it resizing to fill the space I've given it) to get a better look at what it's supposed to be. But YMMV, if anybody else has a superior resolution and/or inferior zoom-level on their chosen interface. 92.23.3.7220:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I note that we do already use different colours for internal and external links. Technically. Given they're currently nearly indistinguishable shades of blue, much stands to be gained in the distinguishing interwiki links department with a colour change, but I have no suggestions on a colour. (#0ba1ff looks like this, which to my eyes is too bright. Can you imagine an explanation with every Wikipedia link that light?)
I was spurred to comment by the fact the jigsaw icon has been promoted over on the Technical portal as a less disruptive alternative to the previous W letter icon. I didn't catch the previous icon in use, so I will accept that the jigsaw is better than the bare letter. (although I corroborate the above user's observation that the jigsaw icon is a pixellated mess at default zoom)
My experience reading explanations with the jigsaw icon is that it is by far the most attention-grabbing part of the explanation, especially overshadowing surrounding non-link text! Instinct suggests that the higher quality the explanation, the more detailed it is, the more Wikipedia links it includes, and thus the more of whatever icon is used to flag Wikipedia links appear in the explanation. I find this a reasonable explanation for why Wikipedia links, the most common type of link in explanations, went unmarked in the first place. bubblegum-talk|contribs08:32, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
We do have a design system for color: intro, tokens. Something themed around color-option-lime (from tokens) might work (and would adapt to light and dark mode). 7amiĆ¾ = moi.__init__(t, c)16:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
For reference (and the benefit of showing Bubblegum), the previous result of something like "CW" resolved, on my screen, as you can see here. (I decided not to render that one as a wikitable.) More recognisable, but also more confusable. And that W-image (the slight superscript) was supposed to be 12 pixels wide, IIRC. 78.151.45.3121:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Updating the font used for the title text
Latest comment: 12 October20 comments10 people in discussion
Following this now-reverted change to the {{comic}} template, there's been a short discussion on @FaviFake's talk page over whether to format the Title text below the comic image in small caps. Doing so would align it with using the design of xkcd.com for Randall-written text, and avoid a break of "regular" text in the middle of the small-caps comic template, while arguments against focus on readability and making it harder to distinguish title text deliberately written in all caps.
I support this change because Randall always uses small caps on xkcd.com (including in the Warning, the Tagline, and the Footnote) and the {{comic}} template was created to try and match the original site's design as much as possible. If you really think about it, the sans serif text looks really weird amidst all the text in small caps, and that's because it's our own invention! None of the text on xkcd.com is written in sans serif! This change would also make the distinction between the original work and the explanation more defined, as verbatim quotes of what Randall wrote would be styles in small caps while everything written in a sans serif font is explain xkcd's commentary around it. FaviFake (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
For my probably non-counting vote, I'd still say no thanks. Mere consistency with the rest of the displayed text doesn't overcome its severe aesthetic downsides. 78.151.45.3117:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Your vote does count! Of course, you're invited to create an account, but we want to hear as many voices as possible to not end up picking something that most readers will dislike! Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think it's a cute idea, but I do worry about readability. Part of the reason we include the title text here is for the convenience of users who can't easily view the title text on the original website, right? Transcripts are nice, but being able to see the text right below the comic itself is just nicer, and small caps is considerably harder to read at a glance. There's a reason the wiki doesn't put the explanations in small caps.
I'm also not sure I'm sold on it as a "faithfulness" issue at all. xkcd's title text isn't actually formatted in small-caps on the website itself, after all, since it's a mouseover thing. Text within the comic is in all-caps, and title text is formatted "normally". In fact, small caps never appears within "comic content". Personally, I associate "small caps under the comic" with permanent links and embed links. Small caps is used just about everywhere but the comic and its title text. With that in mind, putting the title text in caps actually makes it look less like the original version. I instinctively glaze over "small caps under the comic" because I assume it's unrelated. 2601:1C0:847E:40D3:BD8F:DA36:CC46:F34317:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
xkcd's title text isn't actually formatted in small-caps on the website itself, after all, since it's a mouseover
Yeah, exactly! Another way to say that would be: xkcd's title text isn't in small-caps because it's a mouseover and these kinds of tooltips can't be customised by the site's owner. If they were customisable, or if Randall would choose to display it, he would do it in small-caps, like this. And of course the comic's text can't be in small caps, because it's a hand-drawn image and it's already in all-caps. FaviFake (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
i personally HATE the idea. the edit was highly unplesant, and I personally would have reverted it had I known where the edit WAS. also, it looks like the Arial font to me. 73.132.167.11618:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
if Randall would choose to display it, he would do it in small-caps Actual citation needed.
(If that image is actually a citation, sorry, but everything on imgur is geofenced to only ever be a "Content is not viewable in your region" image for the last couple of years. But, the way you say it, it's just a mock-up of what you think he'd do, yes?) 78.151.45.3121:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
While a fun idea, I think it's more natural, readable, and faithful to the original website to display it as is. Small caps gives a certain gravitas to the comic that kind of goes against the tone of the jokes, and title text isn't not displayed like that on the m.xkcd.com website where Randall has the choice to display in his style. My vote is oppose. 169.231.212.10923:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose This isn't xkcd proper, we shouldn't be forced to follow Randall's styling. I found the small caps hard to read, like trying to read this fragment or trying to read this fragment and also think it ruins the strength of small caps. Also agree with 169.231.*.*'s argument about m.xkcd.com. 7amiĆ¾ = moi.__init__(t, c)03:06, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. The title text at xkcd.com is not in small caps. Regardless, the regular font is more readable; the xkcd site's design is artistic whereas our title text is for day-to-day reading. And about these kinds of tooltips can't be customised by the site's owner, watch: Sophocrat (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Most likely, figuring out a way to present external links in a simpler way everyone can be happy with, since the current icon things we've tried have ended up being more cumbersome than anything else for many editors. Main hurdle is that we do want to tell the user when they're clicking on an external link, but in a way that's unobtrusive enough since most pages will heavily link two other domains (xkcd.com and wikipedia.org).
Throwing an idea at the wall, but maybe different shades of blue for internal links, xkcd.com links, and other external links, with only non-interwiki links among the latter getting an "external link" icon? Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Different shades of blue text are probably not going to stand out much. If they weren't almost right next to each other, your "internal links, xkcd.com links, and other external links" examples would be difficult for me (on my screen) to differentiate the internal and other-external hues
Being a pixel or two width, at most, the antialiasing will make adjacent hues not distinguishable (except maybe as adjacent links).
Perhaps go further around the spectrum, something like internal links, various wiki-project/wiktionary links, wikiajacent-links, like TVTropes, internal redlinks, of course, 'warning'-style link? (e.g. the recent link-poisoning destinations) and all (*.)xkcd.com destinations.
Of course, these are 'pure hue' primaries and secondaries that I'm giving here, for just general illustrative purposes (you'd need to darken/desaturate some, especially the 'yellow' - at least under LightMode where it sits on a white/light-grey field), and maybe you don't need equal 60-degree-hue-shifts between them. Start with internal links using #0645AD and the internal redlink colour (whatever it is, if it isn't pure red) and find handy spots (of not less than, say, 45-degrees-hue separation between any two) that are suitably adjusted muted/bright for lightmode/darkmode, accordingly, to be really obvious that they're the same. (And consider whether you've got a "visited link" version for any or all of those basic unvisited ones, of course.)
Alternatively, just take a leaf out of the OG TVTropes/RationalWiki link format and make the background an unobtrusive but obvious shade. You might be able to get away with internal links, xkcd.com links, and other external links (though I just did it by hand, and I'm not happy with those precise hexes for the bg-colours. I am a bit worried that it doesn't "look like a link" by classic (post-underline) design standards, but with the right adjustments you can still get the larger blocks of solid-filled pixels needed to distinguish otherwise rather close shades and hues. The 'redlink' would still be just red(ish?) text, of course, unless you want it to be red text on the internal-link background, for example.
Though my real fallback is that I actually don't think it matters much about trying to do this. I'd leave/restore the long-established formattings as they have been, happily enough. Keep the xkcd.com domain having the 'two figures in a panel' icon-marker, internal and mainstream wikiproject links are practically the same and whitelisted to not need a link-icon (just plain unvisited/visited link colours), TVTropes/similar-clicksinks gets the longstanding background-treatment still and every other possible external link gets to use the default "this is an external link" iconography. 78.151.45.3101:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
For context, I took the internal and external link colors from Wikipedia's Vector 2010 interface (Help:Link color), which don't really match the Wikimedia Codex tokens one. Also fine with restoring the original formatting, although adding a difference in color between internal and Wikipedia links could work on top of it (maybe this and this?) Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please undo this icon update
Latest comment: 14 October4 comments3 people in discussion
Can we please undo the sidebar icon update? They look ugly and lack personality, there was literally no point in changing it whatsoever. Tux1 (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also if you're concerned about using vector graphics to maintain display quality at any resolution, do keep in mind that the original icons have already been vectorized and they look fine. I can't link them here due to the CAPTCHA bug but look up "Silk Icon Scalable". Tux1 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
We've changed them to Wikimedia Codex icons mostly to have a more consistent vibe with the rest of the website (especially as we envision to suggest a switch to Vector 2022 as the default skin). The original icons looked quite dated and were a bit distracting, and we hope to implement xkcd-style sidebar icons down the line. However, we're of course open to rolling them back if the community preferred the old icons. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
there was literally no point in changing it whatsoever
The old ones weren't vector graphics, so for people who needed to zoom in (aka most people, given Vector 2010's small text size) were met with many pixels and not much else.
We had no icons for some of these, such as what if? articles, so eventually we would've needed to find similarly pixelated images to use. Which is a lot of work for a much worse result.
They are completely different from every other icon used on this wiki. For example, see this screenshot: can you imagine if instead of the new icons we had kept the old ones? They would stand out, but not because they're more "beautiful". Same applies to the {{comic discussion}} template, and every other MediaWiki part of this site.
In addition to being low-res, they were too small to easily distinguish. Pair that with the fact that we couldn't enlarge them, and you get a subpar experience.
They are completely different from Randall's style. Sure, these aren't really "similar" either, but at least they're not coloured, they're just a black stroke over a white background, and they aren't visibly pixelated, just like xkcd comics. Eventually, the goal is to use xkcd-style icons, but there a great interim solution because they are distinctly better in this sense.
It wouldn't match the new design of the wordmark, which you an see at #Icon and wordmark redesign. Which is also drawn in the xkcd style (again, we're trying to make explain xkcd more xkcd-esque)
They look ugly and lack personality. This is subjective, I'm sure you're get used to them once you try to appreciate the positive things about the change :)
Can't immediately see this said anywhere - might be in 'archived' Portal material, or even a different part of the Portal page-system - but I think I recall a recent statement that as you can get to xkcd via the top of the comic pages then there's no need for it. If that wasn't a similar-sounding reason for a different change, that I'm misrecalling.
You are recalling correctly. Because one needs to be at the top of the page to click it, and because at the top of the page there's almost always the comic navigation bar, it was redundant. Having too many links in the sidebar can make people less interested in reading them. In this case, less was more.
Thought I remembered it. But, just to counter that:
It's not actually so obvious that a comic header has a link to get to the xkcd page for that comic, in-between the links to the previous/next explainxkcd comic pages. And making it more obvious would likely be inelegant.
It somewhat looks like it's now missing from the sidebar only because you can't find a decent icon for it (by using only the revamp icons, which are a bit 'wingding'-generic in an effort to have a more professional-looking appearance), which I don't think is the real reason, but the difference between eight lines of things and seven is an insubstantial design outcome. But does rather remove the quick link to the (default, most recent) xkcd.com comic page.
And don't forget that while each comic-explanation might have that (slightly hidden) link to its original page, but if you're actually in a comic Talk page, or a User/User Talk page, or anywhere here under the Community Portal then you almost certainly don't have a direct xkcd.com link of any kind.
The 'problem' with a minor accessibility redundancy/reduplication in some instances has to be balanced to all the times when it's now less obvious/easy for casual readers to find their way there from here.
...personally, I'll just type xkcd.com in the address bar, most of the time/now, no skin off my nose. (It would be slightly more awkward via Android browser, except that I'm no longer reading this site via that, anyway, the way that it's now broken.) And other old hands might well just bookmark the same link. But readers who come here by chance, new to this site and the one it's documenting, are now less likely to know where they might next go from a random search-engine link landing them here. 81.179.198.12800:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think those are good reasons for making it clearer to readers that the button above the image is a link to xkcd.com, not necessarily for restoring the sidebar link. FaviFake (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
In general, I'd prefer a bit of redundancy to making it more confusing for some of our readers. The fact that the link technically exists on most pages (namely, comics) doesn't mean we can't also have an explicit sidebar link for the sake of convenience. Chaotic Enby (talk) 04:09, 28 October 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 ā 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: 7 October4 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
(Noting just for the record that discussion about this has continued in the #technical channel of the Discord server.) Sdkb (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Auto-purge comic's explanation page when discussion page updated
Latest comment: 17 October4 comments4 people in discussion
When I edit the discussion for a comic, the change isn't immediately reflected in the comic's explanation page. If this will take awhile to implement, consider adding a manual purge button to the explanation pages, something like https://www.explainxkcd.com/w/index.php?title=3312:_Momentum_Demonstration&action=purge. 64.201.132.21016:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Very recently I did discover that a Talk-reply of mine hadn't popped up yet. I did something to make sure that it was actually there, but I forget what.
Yes, there used to be a "Refresh"-style link, in alongside the "Add comment" above the Talk-inclusion of each main comic-page, but not sure if that survived the transition to the new server, a few months back, or if it then got lost due to other Executive Redesigning decisions done after that point. However, I think I might have just "Shift-Refresh"ed at the browser level to kick-start the appropriate level of page-caching into recognising the updated nature of the transclusion.
Though I can probably count on the fingers of half a hand when I ever needed to use the embedded cache-refresher, during the old server's era. Probably used it more to debug various oddnesses (like when image-thumbnails started glitching and giving only red-text links on an on-and-off basis, which was a major issue at one point). Never really noted any amount of the Talk-transclusion ever being tardy, like above. And can only guess how it has become something now happening to not just me. 78.151.45.3118:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I recently removed that button because having three buttons there broke the display on the new mobile skin we're developing, Minerva Neue. Didn't think anyone would notice.
You can just open the talk page to see the newer comments.
If you want the button back, you can simply enable it in your preferences. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, enable the "Purge" option, and click save. There'll be a fancy new asterisk button on the tools section of your sidebar.
I don't think that would be possible, or necessarily desirable. It would mean giving possibly global page-creation rights to everyone, and swing the door right open to potentially unlimited page-creation-spam. Even if it's somehow restricted to "User Talk: <registered user>" pages, which I'm not sure is viable, I can still see several problems. It is something I know I have had to deal with, but I'd rather not have this ability than risk everyone having it.
The standard response is very probably "get an account" (and then get to autoconfirmed status for that account). And, I think totally without hypocrisy, it would be my suggestion too if this page is something you really want to create.
But I'm wondering how much it'll help to talk to a user who hasn't bothered to create a User Talk page, or even the User page that it goes with. Or have asked for it/them to be created, before their own autoconfirmed status. They may or not be keeping an eye on this site, or have manage to arrange to be notified by email that your message has appeared on 'their' page. It's a tricky situation, and I don't think there's a good universal solution of any kind. 92.23.2.12319:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Consider the status of the line-feed from the inline "Reply" option.
Latest comment: 26 October4 comments3 people in discussion
When replying to Talk-type pages, or indeed in here, the 'old way', you would typically put your response on the very next editing-line within the source editor. And manually add the colon (or one more than above) to indent it.
The behaviour of the "Reply" tag, made available just beyond the signature of a prior contributor will deal with the indents for you, without any need to make it consistent, and even tends to place it in the right place where you're not the first reply at 'the next level' from something. But it's also liable to save it 'to source' with an extra linefeed.
This extra linefeed is not in itself a problem. With non-coloned prior-and-next line combo, you need the extra linefeed gap to make it not run straight on from the prior to the next, but it does not really matter when it goes from a ":" to a "::" (or a "" to a ":"), or even becomes a further ":::" beyond a prior "::" to ":::" response. But I've noticed that there have been a number of edits that just remove the empty line before a Reply-tagged response. Why not? But also... why? Perhaps time and edits could be saved if the server-defaut inline Replying behaviour did not add the superfluous linefeed. And I can't think of any times they 'aren't superfluous, but I'm sure someone will pipe up if they think there's a good technical reason.
(I note with amusement, that using the Add Topic option at the top of the page also now does an 'inline' edit. And of course means I need to put in the inter-paragraph gaps. Or another method, like a br-tag. Like I'd have to have done in the edit-page version, or else just get a long run-on paragraph. But it's even more obvious as it appears dynamically below this edit-window, but also now less instinctive to do so by myself until I notice.)
Either way, it's hard to deal with the 'unnecessary' linefeed-removing edits, as it seems they're often done by IPs. (Not me.) Trying to tidy things up, I presume. Not sure what message could stay their trying-to-be-helpful hands and save them the time. Unless they're just trying to bump a Talk page, for some reason. 92.23.2.12319:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is part of the DiscussionTools extension, for which the behavior of the "Reply" function can't be configured on individual wikis beyond choosing between indents and list bullets. Surprisingly, it doesn't work with wikitext directly, but with the HTML output that is parsed back into wikitext, which might explain some of the edge case behaviors. Chaotic Enby (talk) 08:36, 23 October 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: 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: 9 October12 comments5 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
As a blind screen reader user and occasional reader of/dabbler in this wiki, I'd just say leave things as they are; changing the order around wouldn't be worth the trouble. Having the transcript always available means that the browser's find feature will work on it. I usuallly arrive here because a comic was cited somewhere else, and the explanation is more useful for understanding *why* the comic is important than the transcript. If you need a timely response from me, message me on my talk page; I can get pings with my screen reader but don't visit this wiki that often. Graham87 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Category for guns
Latest comment: 31 October6 comments2 people in discussion
This strip has quite a lot of use of firearms, and I think it would be convenient to have a linked list of all the strips mentioning or using guns for people to page through. Student Driver (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I meant strip as in the whole run of xkcd. I had been hoping this would get more of a response ... maybe people aren't interested. I think there are a couple dozen strips within xkcd that involve guns or firearms in general. I think it would be interesting to link them together in a category the way we have done with Category:Crossbows and the other categories at Category:Comics_by_topic. Then we could make a parent category Category:Weapons and put both the gun and crossbow categories into the weapons category. Student Driver (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Student Driver Yeah I agree! I definitely think we should have a category about guns. I like the "weapons" parent category as well.
Okay, thank you. I have created Category:Weapons and added the crossbow category to it. I think it might be best for me to use the formal term and create Category:Firearms instead of Category:Guns, since there are at least three strips (220, 517, 2049) featuring playful weapons that are technically guns but clearly not firearms. My original thinking was that it is in fact quite rare to find real weapons featured in a comic strip, so I would prefer to highlight the uses that stand out to me. If this is okay with everyone here, I will go ahead with the firearms category and start adding the strips I find to it, while adding the strips with playful weapons to the parent category of Weapons. I think also that there are some strips involving weapons that appear only once, so I would be adding these to the Weapons category as well. Does this sound good? Student Driver (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Love this! As a small note, I slightly prefer a category called "guns", even if not all guns are firearms. It's rare for a comic to feature any type of gun, so I think the category would still be very useful even if we include those. But you can pick firearms if you want, this is just my preference! FaviFake (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
New Category: D&D
Latest comment: 25 October3 comments3 people in discussion
Agreed. Maybe it should be renamed to "Tabletop roleplaying games" or something, to include cases where d&d isn't explicitly mentioned? FaviFake (talk) 15:19, 25 October 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:
Latest comment: 29 September4 comments4 people in discussion
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, ābecause itās always been this wayā 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 ācompletely revamp this wikiā? 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 weeksā reputation. Get real. Elizium23 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
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-argumentā 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. ātheusaf (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 theusafBOTās 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
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā 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: 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...š 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? 7amiĆ¾moi Ā· š¬ Ā· š17:49, 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
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.
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
Latest comment: 29 September3 comments3 people in discussion
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)
