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 100×100 pixels.
The wordmark: this should be a landscape monochrome image (wider than it is tall). This is a graphical version of the name "explain xkcd". Please remember that the name of the wiki is all lowercase (or all uppercase), so do not capitalise the "e" or "xkcd" differently from the rest of the wordmark. This should also be an SVG, with a width of 124px height of 32px.
The tagline: this is shown below the name of the page. It is currently "explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb" (Learn why). You can propose a new tagline in #Better tagline. ㅤ
The tagline can also be shown underneath the wordmark, although this is optional. This is an example of a Vector2022 compliant logo:
We're planning on switching the default skin from Vector (V10) to the modern Vector 2022 (V22), but unfortunately, our current site logo and all logo proposals are designed around V10. V10 logos are generally a single large squarish image, which is why we have the name of the site in the logo, but in V22, you need an small square icon section, and then a separate wordmark section for the site's name.
This is also an opportunity to change or redesign the site's current tagline, "Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb", which has been controversial, since you need to create a tagline image regardless.
As such, we are now hosting a logo redesign contest! For more on the logo's design requirements, see wgLogos.
Please upload any logo proposals into the category Category:explain xkcd logo proposals with the format "proposalname_[icon/wordmark/tagline]". We strongly recommend an SVG logo so that scaling can happen correctly. For example, you might name a wordmark image "AbbyProposal_wordmark.svg". If your proposal contains a full icon/wordmark/tagline set, give them the same proposal name, but you can also upload individual components if you want.
Click this link and click "Browse...". You can upload individual components or the entire icon/wordmark pair if you want.
If you don't have an account or you don't have permission to upload files, upload the proposal at https://wetransfer.com and leave a comment below. We will upload it for you!
In "Destination filename", give it a name like "NAME_OF_YOUR_PROPOSAL_icon/wordmark.svg".
In "Summary", paste this text exactly: [[Category:explain xkcd logo proposals]]. You can optionally also describe the proposal.
Click "Submit". If you did it correctly, it should appear in this gallery.
You just have to add "[[Category:explain xkcd logo proposals]]" to the bottom of the page.
I should note, though, that the icon on the new logo will be much smaller than the current logo, so your proposal doesn't really work. Ideally you want to avoid having the sitename in the icon, because that's for the wordmark. Celene (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I assumed icon meant the one that went on the top left of the site...what's the proper name for that? And is that one even up for replacement? Morpheus (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The proper name is "icon", yes, it's up for replacement. As I said, the current site logo is designed for V10, which means that it's a large squarish image with the name of the site on it. This doesn't work for the V22 skin, because it's designed for the logo to be much smaller and to have the name of the site be in a separate "wordmark" section next to it.
to confirm, the existing logo will remain in effect for users of Vector 2010? or, do we get the wordmarkless section of the new logo - Vaedez (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ideally the new icon-wordmark pair could be adapted for a square size, but I suspect we'll end up with two different logos until someone develops a better square logo. FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe this is a stupid idea, and I don't know if this violates copyright, but maybe the Wikipedia puzzle globe from Malamanteau could make a good explain xkcd logo. It represents a wiki, in that the puzzle globe is synonymous with Wikipedia, almost certainly the most famous wiki, and it represents xkcd in that it is part of an xkcd comic. 97.121.204.14122:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately the logo is really old and not great. We'd have to upscale it but it still wouldn't look great. And I think we'd want at least one of the characters in the logo. FaviFake (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Before I went to bed last night I was thinking making a version with Beret Guy popping out of the globe; which could combine the wiki-implications of the globe with BG's manic energy, if y'all'd like me to submit that. 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊17:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I really like this idea! I actually had one similar to this, albeit a bit simpler, just a stick figure with a Wikipedia-like globe for their head. I made a sketch of it a few days ago and I'm actually working on making a vector version of it now! I don't think I can share images here yet but I'd really like to submit it once I'm done, though I will say I do find this idea more fun! AltaKarl (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright, here's a full version of it! WeTransfer has been giving me issues so here's a google drive link. The markdown file is for the summary in the description, and it does include content from xkcd/the wiki. (Also wow this took more effort to share than I thought to lol) AltaKarl (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I think I know what you mean, I made it at a higher size and then shrunk it so some weird distortion happened. That's also why I didn't submit the wordmark separately even though I wanted to, since at the size they requested the stick figures were far too distorted. I tried my best to fix it here, but a lot of stuff still looked weird regardless, maybe I could submit it at a higher resolution? AltaKarl (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It looks really good, great job! I think it's really cute and detailed, which is not great for a wordmark, but we could use it on the Main Page! I really love the little characters sitting on the xkcd word.
WikiCueball looks kind of like a zombie to me, but it's cute nevertheless! I don't love the tagline, but that can always be changed or removed since it's an SVG. FaviFake (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I did think of giving them a black hat, but I didn't since it made it less clear and didn't even look that great, so if I were to add more details I'd do it in the rest of the wordmark. Also I added the current tagline as a placeholder, of course if it gets changed it would be the new one, my focus was on the font AltaKarl (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to share a link to it here but when I try to reply it shows me a completely blank Captcha box, so I don't exactly know what to do? AltaKarl (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I haven't permission to upload files so I have stuck my proposal on imgur, if someone could do the admin for me :] The source file is SVG (which imgur doesn't support, happy to provide by another means if needed), and elements are traced directly from comics so there are licensing implications of that UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here's a very straightforward wordmark suggestion, if someone would be so kind as to upload it for me.
Also for anyone who wants it: the font in the xkcd logo is Lucida Sans and there's a very good font of Randall's handwriting here. UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
My entry. I call it "Complicated", and it includes an icon, wordmark, and the tagline "More fun to explain". The idea being the icon is complicated and has to be explained because, just like XKCD, it is more fun to explain. JimMcKeeth (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks nice and futuristic and clean, but I think it kind of clashes with the simple-yet-nerdy sketch feel of xkcd itself. 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊04:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I should mention that I've requested that two specific screenshots of the words "explain" and "xkcd" from two Randall comics be vectorised at Wikimedia Commons, so hopefully we should get a high-quality wordmark in a few days. FaviFake (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I just received the new SVG files from the folks on Commons! It took them a bit more than a few days, but I think the results are worth the wait! Since this discussion was trending towards using an xkcd-esque font, I decided to try to actually create the wordmark from screenshots taken from xkcd comics (instead of the existing xkcd-style font sets, which are less accurate). More specifically, the two PNG images were taken from 1707: xkcd Phone 4 (for the "XKCD") and 2768: Definition of e (for the "EXPLAIN"), and then they were redrawn as vector files by an editor at Commons (I also slightly tweaked them).
I think this wordmark pairs really nicely with UnfixedCuttlefish's icon proposal (which unfortunately is a PNG image, but UnfixedCuttlefish said they also have the original SVG version.)
The editor also created a second version with the words stacked on top of each other, which I think is perfect for the Vector 2010 skin as it's mostly a square:
Oops I found that page & reuploaded my original file as I didn't check the timestamps and thought it had some other provenance. You're too fast for me :P (fwiw the things around the dot are based on the various representations of oracles/visitors from the future, meant to add a bit of dynamism. But I get why you might prefer it without 'em) UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
A rather late suggestion to add, but I've got a draft here of a very straightforward adaptation of the Wikipedia globe logo. Not entirely convinced it's the right direction, as this site isn't primarily an encyclopedia the way Wikipedia is. (Will provide an SVG once I've finished vectorizing & details) UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wow that already looks really good! I love the xkcd style!
And everyone should know that we absolutely still welcome new icon suggestion! We have a lot of really great wordmarks already but we're still not set on the icon. FaviFake (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(I don't have problems with the "'cause you're dumb", actually. And noting that I'm sure that you're not needing to ask for taglines to be SVGed and uploaded, but I can work something out for me and the contributor above if you want.) 92.23.5.9219:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I kind of like "explain xkcd: [citation needed]" since it's the main gimmick of the site, but I'm also inclined to keep the original tagline Celene (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
i also don't have an issue with the original. however, if changing it is inevitable, i would favor the [citation needed] joke, but i think it would work best as a suffix to a sentence. (e.g. "It's 'cause your dumb.[citation needed]) -- somefan (talk | contribs)23:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would actually prefer "It's 'cause you're dumb.[citation needed]" over the status quo ("It's 'cause you're dumb.") with the rationale that it's much less likely to be taken the wrong way (I don't mind the original tagline either, but I can't deny it comes across as hostile, because other people have complained about it before) and exemplifies our character as a community.
I think I mentioned my preference previously in the Discord. Really, there's nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by tacking a {{cn}} onto the end of the tagline. Eunakria (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I'm not on the Discord, but I agree with you here. While I don't dislike the current tagline, and I like the idea of a rotating tagline, if we're changing it and we can't make it rotate, we should absolutely do this.
i'm now leaning towards this as being a good modification! i was thinking of something like that, but i can't see any how it would make the statement be more likely to be taken correctly (if also meaning "nonhostile"). my interpretation is that this just adds insult to insult (LOL), as [citation needed] is jokingly used by Randall in his books and blog when declaring obviously true statements, which i find funny :) -- somefan (talk | contribs)04:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some What If? articles do use [citation needed] in this fashion, notably what if? 27 ("Death Rates") which subverts the prior use of the joke in What If?
[...] This means the death rate among humans who were not members of The Beatles is significantly higher than the 50% death rate among humans who were.
I expect this significant[dubious–discuss] fact[citation needed] will pave the way[citation needed] for a great deal[dubious–discuss] of important[citation needed][dubious–discuss] research.
Also, you'd be facing an uphill battle trying to make the assertion that "people are stupid" in the context of xkcd, insofar as 1386: People are Stupid.
tbh for awhile now i've felt like the tagline would benefit from being a link to a page explaining that the tagline doesn't actually think you're dumb, it's meant in jest/sarcastically; i think my vote has to be for one of:
the original tagline unmodified but the text is a link to "here's why this might read as an insult, here's why it isn't an insult" explicit tonal clue-in
the original tagline with [citation needed], where the text inside the brackets is a link to the aforementioned tonal clue-in
rotating tagline with the first bulletpoint as one of the rotated values, or if not rotated, a user preference to revert to the old tagline (i'd accept a usercss method of undoing whatever the new tagline is as well)
In the vein of this, something along the line of <Comic Title>[citation needed] may be interesting. I'm not sure this would work very well as a tagline, but maybe there is room somewhere for something that updates depending on the current page you are on. DarkAndromeda31 (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
What if we made the tagline rotating, like it is at mezzacotta.net? (example: here, then reload the page a ton) That way we can get every single reference and gag in there. If not, how about this tagline: "Explain xkcd: It's because you're not as smart as you're supposed to be.[citation needed]" 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊04:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
A rotating tagline would be fun, but we need a few good options. I've done something similar before, specifically a rotating tagline in the footer of Skin:Citizen with all of the options being mediocre puns. I don't know if that fits the vibe of this wiki, which already has its own sense of humor in article text. Eunakria (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm minded of the "... histories of X an Y" postscript to Dwarf Fortress. Or, closer to home, a 2243-like way of 'mixing something up' dynamically, with but a little thought for the possibilities (possibly multi-path, rather than simply permutational). 92.23.5.9222:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, the wordmark (which will be displayed in V22 instead of a standard square logo) and optional revised tagline (to replace "it's 'cause you're dumb") are two separate things we want. Eunakria (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This was one of the ones proposed in the original proposal; the main objection I saw was that no one knows who this 10000 is. (I like it though.) 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊00:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is the best one yet, but it's not perfect because you still need to have read the comic in order to understand it. However, it's certainly better than the current one. FaviFake (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I support this one as well. I think that the current tagline also requires some prior knowledge of Black Hat's classhole nature to not be offended. Capycapybara (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Couldn't agree more with this as a suggestion and with the supporting reasons others have given - much more in tune with the ethos of xkcd and knowledge, in my opinion.
Not necessarily relevant - I get that this is an American site - but to British English ears, calling someone "dumb" I think is more unpleasant than it perhaps is to US residents. Although we obviously understand the American idiom, used in British English, it's more likely to retain its original meaning, and therefore equates people who cannot speak with stupidity. 87.115.198.7414:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I like this one! Addressing FaviFake's point that you need to have read the comic for it to make sense, maybe the tagline could link to the comic, like so:
My main issue with this one is that the “10000” in the comic specifically refers to Americans, while explainxkcd has an international audience. 84.226.147.17920:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd be happy with any of the variations on "lucky 10,000" - it's definitely one of the top two suggestions for me. I agree that providing a link to the comic would be a definite plus, as it would be for any new tagline that references a specific comic. As a Brit, I don't much mind the fact that the 10,000 is the result of a US-centred calculation - the point is much more important than the number. 87.115.198.7408:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Tagline: "Explain xkcd: Because jokes are funnier when you explain them." (paigefile) (talk)
I like the ideas of rotating taglines and of course "lucky 10,000." A proposal based on [1], "Majors in the Universe". A second suggestion might be based on [2]: "Both physics and stamp collecting!" Ideally, we'd have a tagline that truly represents the wonder of learning. Maplestrip (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
An xkcd for everything, and an explanation for every xkcd
Overanalyzing stick figures. For science!
Overthinking webcomics so you don't have to
Robert'); DROP TABLE explanations;--
(Here are ones I added:)
Randall understands his comics best.
It's 'cause you're not Randall. (Someone else said this)
Someone is wrong on this page. Help us fix it!
Not everyone understands xkcd.
Romance, Sarcasm, Math, and Language: Explained! (I found this in another discussion, can't remember which)
Explained in Ten Hundred Words.
Because jokes are funnier when explained. (Someone else said this)
What if the internet suddenly didn't exist?
Also, we should change the icon because Black Hat wouldn't say some of these. YZ100 (talk) 5:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I love "You're one of today's lucky 10,000" and "It's 'cause you're dumb [citation needed]", here are some more basic ideas for taglines I've thought of:
waking up the sheeples
enriching your search history since 2009
because science is hard
complex solutions to simple problems
with questionable moral (yet scientific!) values
0 days since last cool bug sighting
overengineering, overthinking, overanalyzing (or overdramatizing, if that's a word)
It seems most of these proposed rotating taglines reference a specific comic, so I think we should add a link to the comic somwhere in the tagline. For example, if someone doesn't know what "waking up the sheeples" references, readers should be able to get to the comic. But I don't want the link to be too prominent. Where should we put it? FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Or maybe a hidden link? The text could remain grey but become underlined if someone hovers over it. Or it could not even become underline, but still change the cursor! So people who know the reference who don't hover over it won't notice a link, but the people who want to know more or to select it to put it on google will notice that their cursor changes.
I'm not opposed to a tagline that references a specific comic (whether it links to it or not), provided the joke work to some extent without knowing the comic. I do however object to the several suggestions that refer to Randall by name, since his name isn't very prominent anywhere in the comics themselves/on the xkcd website. UnfixedCuttlefish (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to share a link to it here but when I try to reply it shows me a completely blank Captcha box, so I don't exactly know what to do? AltaKarl (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've noted that the CAPTCHA thing that appears for me here when I post an external link (I'm going to link http://www.google.com here, for no other reason other than just to perhaps trigger this double-check I've got this reply right), the message suggests you need to fill out a CAPTCHA at the top (unlike the prior version of this wiki, which made it a popover) but hasn't actually gone so far as to make me do it...
This might just be because I seem to be happily satisfying the protections enough to not need 'more' confirmation that I'm not an AI/etc. (On desktop, at least. I just can't get past the ticking and reticking of the "Yes, I am a human"-type thing on my Android device, before getting to any explainxkcd page. And I've seen other people mention this, elsewhere.)
If you're only hit by this when trying to add a URL, then you're better than most. And there will be ways to get around this. For example, if I wrote a URL as "htt p:/ /ww w.g oog le. com" then you might be able to post something that could be simply reconstructed by the rest of us. 92.23.0.2820:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
...ok, follow-up to myself to first correct a formatting error, in the above, but also to point out that
If I use the inline 'reply' option, I do get a CAPTCHA text-input box that has no apparent hint as to what should go in it. So sounds like AltaKar's situation.
But if I use the 'normal' page (or section) editing option, I get "Your edit includes new external links. To protect the wiki against automated spam, please solve the following captcha:" at the top, upon submitting the post, and then the (top-of-page) CAPTCHA frame just ticks itself for me and lets me complete the posting.
Whether this information helps either AltaKar or the mods here, is another question. But it might give you some more ideas on how to get around/cater for the problem at hand. 92.23.0.2820:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's interesting, I'll definitely look into it. That actually makes some sense, and yeah IIRC I set it to only do Turnstile when an anonymous editor adds an external link. However, the fact that you can't access any explainxkcd page at all on Android is weird and shouldn't be happening because I haven't set any protections around normal cached pages, tell me more about that? Celene (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
(Yeah, with further brief analysis, there seems to be different reaction to using the "Reply"-to-conversation point, like I'm doing right now, and using the "[edit]" next to the header as I used to do. This may be behind AltaKarl's complaint. Not sure what the fine-grained control you have over these things, and AltaKarl is not an anonymous editor, even if I am... But, anyway.)
As briefly as I can on the other incident I mentioned in passing (because I've seen it mentioned in far more detail elsewhere, and this isn't really the right place to document it even on this page), if I turn to my Android device (also sitting on the same internet connection, albeit by Wifi) and go to any page on explainxkcd.com it goes through the following process:
"www.explainxkcd.com" "Performing security validation" etc... takes a little time ("it may take a few seconds") for it to be "verifying" to get the...
"Verify you are human" tickbox from Cloudflare, which I tick.
It 'swirls', "it may take a few seconds", tells me "verifying", then...
"Verify you are human" tickbox from Cloudflare, which I tick.
...and keeps looping.
And if I leave the 'tab' around and come back later, it inevitably tells me "Incorrect device time" (presuming it 'remembers' the timestamp of the original attempt to access) until I refresh the page to just start upon the above loop again.
I've stopped bothering coming to this site on Android (used to be particularly handy for two-screen comparison, whichever side I read as I write on the other). But I'm adjusting, accordingly, because I've still got this PC. Conversations seen elsewhere have implied others are not so lucky, perhaps being entirely on mobile-broadband. 92.23.0.2821:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I just added the reply by using the 'normal' page editing option, it was a bit inconvenient so hopefully that issue can get fixed soon, but it's alright AltaKarl (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lettherebedarklight As I explained in EX:CPT#Editing improvements (WikiEditor + VisualEditor), we are not changing the skin for everyone, we're only changing the default skin, which will mostly affect logged out users to improve their experience. As I explained in that discussion, you prefer V10, remember there's a huge bolded "Switch to old look" button right in the sidebar so you can switch back in literally 1 click. Worth remembering that most of our readers are logged out or never touch the preferences (or even know there are preferences they can tweak), so it's best if we make the experience as welcoming as possible to them, especially when all it takes to go back is 1 click. The needs or preferences of power users shouldn't determine what the average readers sees. FaviFake (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@FaviFake Can you add support for mobile devices? Explain xkcd appears uncomfortably wide on my smartphone, and Reader Mode removes all edit functionality and some of the formatting. HaruruChanDesu (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
if so, i would very much prefer this to not be automatic-detection (or at least, have a user preference to disable it while logged in) as i tend to hate mobileized interfaces and find them harder to navigate, and the 'switch to desktop mode' toggle doesn't always work even though i have it globally enabled in my browser - Vaedez (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It certainly does not "work perfectly fine". According to the WMF, Vector 2010 didn't match the expectations, was cluttered and not intuitive, and didn't highlight the community side, among other things:
The desktop interface did not match the expectations created by the modern web platforms. It felt disorienting and disconnected. Navigation and interface links were organized haphazardly.
Readers were unable to understand the purpose, terminology, and concepts of available tools such as the main menu, user menu, and page tools.
Editors found the hierarchy of the navigation to be confusing for newcomers.
Editors and other contributors wanted easier access to tools they used frequently.
Editors expressed interest in having fewer but more prominent ways to begin contributing.
There was clutter that distracted users from focusing on what they came for. It was challenging for readers to focus on the content. New editors were unable to use their intuition to perform simple tasks not related to reading.
Too much information density and navigational elements on the page made it difficult to focus on a particular reading or editing task.
Readers found it difficult to navigate the page and spent a lot of time scrolling.
Readers found it difficult to search for information that is relevant to them.
Readers wanted to have an easy way to view the table of contents throughout the page.
Character count per line was more than three times the recommended value.
A very small percentage of readers understood how wikis functioned. Many readers were not aware that the content they were reading was written by volunteers and updated frequently, or that they could potentially contribute as well.
If you don't like it, that's a different question, and you can just click the huge bolded "Switch to old look" button. But it objectively does not work perfectly. FaviFake (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Vector 2022 doesn’t work on mobile devices, either. The lack of support for small screen widths makes makes reading Explain xkcd an ultimatum between straining your eyes to read tiny text and scrolling left and right and left and right and left and right and left.
Works better than Vector 2010 iirc but will probably want a distinct default mobile skin (and subdomain) like Minerva Neue Celene (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Vector 2010 actually has smaller non-collapsible sidebars, so V22 is marginally better to use on mobile devices because the actual content is more narrow and you can just zoom into it more, and most buttons are slightly bigger so they're easier to hit. But yes, a mobile-native skin is of course much preferable, but that doesn't have anything to do with the skin used on desktop. FaviFake (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"because the actual content is more narrow and you can just zoom into it more" Dear god no, mobile screens already chop text into too-narrow segments, the last thing I need is something making those lines even shorter. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Then collapse the sidebars! Or click the "Switch to old look" button! You aren't forced to use the default configuration if you don't want it. It takes just 1 click. FaviFake (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
i debate the objectivity of your "objectively does not work perfectly", while conceding perfection is impossible, as this is a 1172: Workflow situation for me and i've spent a considerable amount of time wrestling with the "modernized" interface for usability reasons which i have not with the "classic". - Vaedez (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 – 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. 7amiþ = 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). 7amiþ = 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
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. 7amiþ = 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
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
.svg)
.png)
