explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous and is kept for historical purposes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current discussion page. Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

So what happened to the site?

Just curious, but it was down last night (June 14, Eastern Daylight time's night) and this morning has reverted to February. This is not a complaint, it's curiosity and a willingness to help out. Nitpicking (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious too. It was down on the morning of Friday the 11th & is currently back up showing last Wednesday the 9th's comic. A post asking about it on r/xkcd got over 140 upvotes in 3 days. ProphetZarquon (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The page was down for more than four days. Problem is there seem to be no administrators attached to explain xkcd anymore, so no one who actually knows anything replies to these posts... :-/ So if the page goes down permanently there seems to be no one who still uses this page, who knows what to do... Kynde (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be a shame since a ton of good content would be lost. Somebody somewhere needs to be paying the bills for the site to be hosted though. Don't they know what happens to the product they're paying for? Bischoff (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, is there anyway we can contribute to the upkeep of the site? --141.101.76.182

Stuck?

So, nothing yet for the August 7, 2021 comic? I normally see the main page update within an hour of the new xkcd appearing. Not complaining, just hoping nothing is wrong. Nitpicking (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Help finding a specific comic.

I've been trying to find this specific comic but I can not find it anywhere. It's the one where a character suggests going to another building to avoid companies like Google and Facebook and tries to leave only to find the doors (and windows?) replaced with walls. Turns out Google and Facebook bought all the buildings and removed all doors so people can only use their services.

(Above unsigned post by 108.162.245.65 04:38, 28 October 2021‎ (UTC).)

99% sure that's not an xkcd (though it does sound entertaining). You might try asking on r/xkcd, they can often ID even non-xkcd comics.

Please sign your posts. Esogalt (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Update/further correct the Bots pages?

Seeing an edit to the site's meta-page on Bots (and making a minor grammatical edit myself), the current and seemingly unfixable inactivity of DgbrtBOT and its replacement by Theusaof... (though not, yet, as an officially recognised member of the Bots group?) makes the statement "There are 3 bots" dubiously correct, depending upon how you count them. As a humble IP unconnected to any 'bot, I am neither confident enough in the facts to revise all the relevent details nor able to do much about it (not even create the above page's Talk-space) but maybe someone else here can muster up both qualities. So over to you..? 172.70.91.36 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Countdown Timer

Does anyone know what the timer in the upper right corner of the website is? As of writing, it's around "20D 20H 20M" (ha ha). Is this for some kind of event I don't know about (I mean, I don't keep track of that sort of thing, so I wouldn't usually know anyway, but still), or is this just something weird Randall's doing that we're all going to find out together?

Just curious. (Tidal Rose)

Yes, I've been wondering, too. I can't find any good explanation anywhere for it -- I looked on Reddit, etc. I guess he really is keeping it a secret -- perhaps a book announcement. -- 162.158.255.253 00:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the accompanying image may also be updating (not minute to minute at the moment). Curious to see what this little black line does! (My bet is that it's a new book as well)

My first thought was counting down to Webb reaching L2, but it's a couple days late for that... looks to be approximately 10AM Eastern on January 31, though my datemath is probably not too good when the local hour is <6. Davidhbrown (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The image has definitely updated!

Is there a place where the progressive images are archived? Fuzzymo (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a page structure now created for it. Go directly to the /images sub-page for the captured series-so-far. 162.158.159.43 04:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The exact time it's counting down to is Monday, January 31, 2022 at 10 AM EST (Munroe's time zone) 108.162.229.165 23:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Could it be for National Backward Day?

Already mentioned (and mostly rejected?) in the real conversation about this. (See the Countdown in header text page, etc, if you haven't already.) Not sure what the plane would have to do with it, unless it turns out to be flying backwards when we see movement lines. 172.70.162.155 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What if 103

Why is it "not quite a coincidence" that the titanic was traveling at about the same speed when it hit bottom as when it hit the iceberg?

1. please sign your posts! 2. im guessing the joke is that it wasnt moving 108.162.221.201 17:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

What are you talking about? Its speed was around 20.5 kts at the time of impact.

Syndication comic: uploaded with no number, link to xkcd doesn't work?

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Syndication

In the title, the page is very broken and there's no evidence Randall Munroe ever uploaded this. Someone in the comments theorises it's a fan uploaded comic pretending to be official. Any way to find out? Mushrooms (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Concerning a certain editor

I'm puzzled and slightly worried as to the motives of a given named editor. Having made direct comments myself (and seen others do so), albeit only as an IP, I'm concerned as to their potentially reckless nature. As messages to(/in reply to) them have done very little to get a valid explanation, I thought I should note the case slightly more formally. They seemed quite helpful when they started to post (at a time of notable vandalism, and I'm reluctant to jump to any adverse conclusion about that) and I obviously cannot speak of their time beyond this submission, but I find an overwhelming amount of their most recent interactions to be (to put it charitably) naive, despite clearly the intelligence to use advanced Wiki markup/etc.

I welcome a ready and willing editor. Moreover one who has bothered to get an accountable account, more than I have ever done! I would be happy to see them usefully contribute further, but could they perhaps realise (or accept, if they already know) that the drive to submit random and (pretty much always) unexplanatory content is not useful to anyone. And that's all I wish to say, right now. As much of a nudge as I want to make for the moment. 141.101.99.64 14:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

xkcd Volume 0

xkcd Volume 0 is a collection of chosen comic strips - but there's also red-text found scattered though pages, usually as some type of cypher or code. Because of that, can an authorized user create a stub for xkcd Volume 0 so that the codes can be documented, or does that risk too much of a copyright violation? --108.162.241.56 00:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia

Is there a comic that mentions Russia? Omg Omg Omg -- Omg omg omg Бельков (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

@Omg omg omg Бельков: Let me use the search bar. ~ Megan ^she/_her ^talk/_contribs 23:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be a good idea if the mods had a look at the following accounts, BTW:

"Omg сайт вместо гидры", "Omg omg omg Бельков", "Omgomg", "Площадка omg", "Darknet omg omg", "Ссылка на omgomg", "Омгомгомг магазин", "Омгомгомг сайт", "Омгомгомг ссылка", "Омг сайт магазин", "Омг ссылка", "Омг тор ссылка", "Площадка omg ссылка", "Сайт омг омг ссылка", "Сайт omg onion", "Сайт omg shop", "Сайт omgomg", "Omgomgomg ссылка", "Omg omg market onion", "Omg onion", "Omg online", "Omg shop ссылка", "Omg web net", "Omgomg гидра", "Omgomg замена гидре", "Omgomg market", "Omgomg tor", "Omgomgomg магазин", "Omgomgomg сайт", "Omg omg сайт зеркало", "Omg omg ссылка онион", "Omg omg сайт аналог гидры", "Omg зеркало", "Omg аналог гидры", "Omg вместо гидры", "Omg даркнет", "Omg дарк", "Omg маркет", "Omg omg площадка тор", "Omg онион", "Omg площадка даркнета", "Omg площадка новая", "Omg площадка торговая", "Omg ссылка", "Omg dark", "Omg darknet", "Omg market", "Omg omg даркнет", "Omg omg магазин ссылка", "Omg omg площадка отзывы", "Omg omg площадка сайт", "Зеркало ссылка омг"

Wasn't particularly concerned, but then one decided to have a go at posting. 172.69.79.185 23:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit War

An edit war has occurred on this page. Three topics were added and then removed. One user got banned. It seemed that the "Miscellaneous" is not actually miscellaneous. I can't create any talk pages, either. ClassicalGames (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Spammers are being impersonated. Clasrch 2023 (UTC)

Connect spam

It seems that the pages with "Connect" in their titles tend to receive spam posts. 2503: Memo Spike Connector (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Did this happen on Wikipedia too? ColorfulGalaxy (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Note for spammers: Do not rely on our group or others such as User:Memo Spike Connector to revert your edits. ColorfulGalaxy (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

April fools day

April fools day is coming. Let's predict what Randall will post for the day. 2503: Memo Spike Connector (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, oh, April Fool's Day has already passed and there doesn't seem to be any related comics this year. ColorfulGalaxy (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like they've seen our trying to predict the April Fools comic. 2659: Unreliable Connection (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Public sandbox

What are the public sandbox pages used for? The "Main Page sandbox" was originally intended for testing the main page features, but then it received a lot of off-topic comments. ColorfulGalaxy (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Template:sandbox page received spam posts recently, with some user repeatedly trying to put words under another person's pen. I'm afraid someone will start using chatbots to spam in the future. ClassicalGames (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The above issue seems to have been resolved. 172.69.135.43 02:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

And then a mysterious "fanmade comic" appeared. 172.69.22.174 02:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

For the record, massive editing has occured here, which is clearly debatable. 172.70.90.35 08:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor guide for specific category

Could you add an editor guide on how to add this category to pages? Some user did it wrongly a while ago. https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Comics_sharing_name

I can't create talk pages. 162.158.166.230 09:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Vector images don't work

The vector images don't show up on my browser. 2659: Unreliable Connection (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Which vector images, and which bowser? 172.69.79.184 23:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is supposed to be a vector image on the top of this page, just above the "Contents" block. It seems to be that none of the vector images show up normally on this computer. 2659: Unreliable Connection (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I used a new browser and it failed again. 2659: Unreliable Connection (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

But which browser(s)? I mean, if you're using Lynx, then you probably won't get native inline SVG rendering support, ever. If you're using NCSA Mosaic then you definitely need to change to something a bit newer anyway. If you're using the latest Chrome/Firefox/Edge/whatever then I'd be surprised if it doesn't work. And if it's only on this site (i.e. that similarly embedded graphics work elsewhere), then that's a whole other line of enquiry.

Help us to help you, if you have indeed got a problem (and perhaps explain how you found the problem, too, to know how you detected the anomaly). 141.101.98.9 12:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Solar system category

Could the category for the solar system be possibly created? There are several comics related. 2659: Unreliable Connection (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey! You don't need to make an admin request. In proposals 1.49 there's where you can propose categories, and if you think it's a good idea/get support you can just go ahead and make it. Mushrooms (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Categorization problem

Just now, I found two user pages lying in the Category:Internet category. Could we possibly create a categorization template so that user pages that transcluded a comic page will not be categorized? We can also solve the problem that puts the Main Page in various theme categories. CategoryGeneral (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've blanked one of the sandboxes. The other one doesn't belong to our group. ClassicalGames (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice sentiments, but please stop feigning talking to yourself or using [your own edits to justify your various unnecessary aliases]...

There really do not need to be 'personal sandboxes', and the use made of the sandboxes is not useful. Many things that a Sandbox is used for could be done simply by the "Show preview", and certainly it isn't supposed to be a notepad for unrelated junk. 172.70.85.67 08:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with Creating a User Page

I'm a relatively new user, and I decided "I should probably make a user page," but for some reason it says that I "do not have permission to create this page" even though it's my page. Trogdor147 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Check the user page now! Z1mp0st0rz (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! To everyone redirected here via my previous comments, click here -> Trogdor147 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Versailles-Rose-style cultural export

America has already banned cultural export from several places, but this happened again in Talk:2781: The Six Platonic Solids. That is illegal. It should be taken seriously. 172.69.134.71 23:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Presuming you're refering to that thing edited out in this edit, if I thought I understood the original comment, then I'm darned if I can work out what your official objection to it is.

If I thought the original wasn't just CG being CG, I'd revert that removal for being nonsensical. No "inciting illegality", so far as I can see, so no need to remove the comment or complain about it.

You're not CG (or an off-site ally) wearing an IP cloak to do other typical CG-like things, such as we've seen many times before, are you? Don't do that, if so. I won't be restoring the original, but you need to establish better reasons for editorialising a Talk page's contributions.

...but, if anyone is going to edit things around again, I hope they also put a suitably attributed {{unsigned ip}} on the other most recent appended line, ok? 172.70.86.16 10:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

He restored that offensive line. 172.69.22.17 23:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here, but the nonsense language makes me suspect bots, in which case maybe just ban the IP. Hawthorn (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Difficult, with IPs. I'm one but not the type you want to ban, if you can take my word on that. It all depends on which Cloudflare gateway(s) you get routed through, and then which 'local' IP you happen to get assigned as from interaction to interaction.

Personally I suspect an idiot (a human, but an idiot. Or maybe an entire off-site group of idiots who are playing some sort of group game using our site as the playing-board. If it's automated (which is more difficult to do reliably than direct human trolling, realistically) then it's still an idiotically set up auto-trolling with no clear usefulness beyond 'because we can'. Nobody bothered to answer me as to why, but that just reinforces my feeling that there's no legitimate reasons behind any of it. 172.71.242.97 09:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That post appeared back again. That's kind of hidden cultural reference. 172.71.154.17 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Too hidden. As I asked before (but it was deleted) explain it to us. Or me, at least. If tou actually have a point, we can help you. But you don't, I suspect. 172.71.242.97 09:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a hidden reference to another country's culture. Many Americans hate that country. We do not allow such countries' culture to invade our website. Our website is American. EDIT: Those captchas are way too hard. 172.71.154.156 23:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Still obtuse. And, I suspect, also incorrect. Which country? China ? North Korea? Canada? You can say, you know... Free speech exists, with no overriding legal prohibition against even mentioning whatever enemy nation you consider as beyond the pale for 'many'. Perhaps you aren't allowed to incite hatred (not sure if it's a legal thing, but it would be a generally established forum policy) but merely mentioning a general emnitity arising from the distrust of all things mapleleafian can be done without fear or favo(u)r. Educate us. Make us understand the issue, that we might never again fall into the trap of razy lacism or accidentally mention beavers in polite company... 172.70.85.130 08:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Click the "edit" button and you'll see that. 162.158.166.204 23:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Twix re-referencing

Nearly put this as an HTML comment in the Social Media category (it has no Talk). Not sure if this should be under Proposals/Maintenance/Co-ordination in here (please move there, if you feel strongly it does belong in any of these). But probably needs saying.

Just seen one (out of many!) Twitter-referencing articles entirely rebranded to say "X" instead (and "x" for "tweet", etc). Which I felt a mistake. Reverted and added a single "now rebranded as..." caveat to the original mention, given the comic concerned was clearly Twitter-branded (older look, too), and this seemed a better solution.

I just want to express my opinion (and thus ask if I'm truly rolling with the consensus) that "now known as "X" is perhaps the besr direction to go. As and when, not necessarily as a splurge of appended edits to every Twitter-referencing page right this minute. (For one thing, it could so easily be rebranded/retrobranded/debranded altogether in the near future if either sanity prevails or greater insanity piles upon that already seen.)

Clear Twitter-era comics certainly don't need "tweets" changed to... whatever gets settled on as the proper term for post-Twitter tweets. "Twixes"? Yeah, nobody really knows that, yet, anyway. When (inevitably) a comic arises referencing "X (formerly known as Twitter)" then the referencing can be reversed. If/when Wikipedia renames/redirects accordingly then maybe that'll be a cue to (as we editors come across them in other edit contexts) change {{w|Twitter}} to something like {{w|X (Social media)|Twitter}} to avoid hitting the redirect, or whatever makes sense by then. But I would resist big changes to legacy references (i.e. pre-July 2023) and imagine that well-meaning editors that do try to help by almost 'keyboard/leopard' mass changing be discouraged/pre-empted.

But that's IMHO. I think it should potentially be a conversation, here, rather than me being a full on vigilante-reverter (and others having their own ideas) just because *I* have a particular impression of what's suitable to maintain site style. For the present. And potentially in years to come when the fate of The Media Formerly Known As Twitter might have transformed yet again and Randall's œuvre (perhaps still being drawn, thrice Earth-weekly, from his Lunar south-pole penthouse 'retirement' suite, or else from his official AI mind-mapped legal successor-entity!) continues to attract new readers for whom this "Twitter" thing needs actual explaining, even though they've used MuskMedia's 'æMotifier' quantum-netlink ever since they got their first cranial emotion-transceiver implant inserted and become a fully accredited voting Martian Citizen! (Or, alternatively, it's become as unknown to most people as AskJeeves/Geocities/Fidonet because it's a sidelined or even completely defunkt thing.)

So, yeah, waaay too early to do crazy site-wide edits, but perhaps agree on what we might do right now on a throttled back basis. 141.101.98.197 09:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

wait what? (is this "view a bunch of html" thing intentional?)

so i was trying to see the rss feed because i was curious and ended up with the page showing me a bunch of html code for some reason. what is going on???

also just realized half of the "[something][/something]" thing you use in forums to, for example, post something as a spoiler is basically html but with square brackets instead of whatever these are called (the ones that look like this: "<>") An user who has no account yet (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

RSS is, or should be, based upon XML (eXtensible Markup Language). Which is basically the 'core' of many common markup languages, especially HTML (or XHTML, as it has been standardised). You're really supposed to use an RSS reader utility to parse the 'html code' and present it in a more human-readable way. (Although it's also fairly easy to human-read the RSS and scan for details of interest, so long as you have at least an inkling of what you're looking at and for.)

Regarding the forum [code]...[/code] stuff, I think you're speaking of BBCode, which I think is intended to be a handy solution to allowing only sanitised markup to be posted by any given forum's random, rambling and potentially rabid users with something to say. If you're happy to allow a contributor to render a <b></b> tag (or with <strong></strong>, or via a CSS property, etc), your forum back-end translates the allowable [b]...[/b] into that mandated browser-friendly form.

But if anyone tried to use any actual <X>-tag directly, then it gets sanitised into <X>. This means that unless the forum explicitly allows it (and in a form that the browser understands, might need a .js/.css extension to execute it in modern browsers) one couldn't <blink><marquee>Blink A Marquee</marquee></blink> within any arbitrary post text...

And also, with such lightweight "Bulletin Board Code" and neutralised 'original raw HTML', you can also stop many of the possible techniques for someone trying direct script-injection or even just rendering follow-up messages liable to inheriting an opened (but not closed) formatting from more freely used HTML.

(I'm not entirely sure if 'markup security' is the prime reason for using it, and I know some weird and disruptive loopholes have occasionally still had to be closed in the parsing/conversion rules, but it seems to me as good an impetus as any.) 172.71.242.8

Is it possible to add a feature that keeps track of all viewed comics so that you specifically view unseen comics only?

I'm trying to read every xkcd comic, and I believe I have done so, but I still have a small doubt in my head. Would it be possible, even if only on explainxkcd to keep track of comics viewed? If not, is it possible to create a program that can do this locally or would I just need to go back through all of them? -- SteveTheNoob (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I'm not aware of anything simple that might (say) work as a {{Special:RandomUnreadOnly}} restriction, if that's what you're looking for. You(/everyone with a named account) probably need a "read list" page off your userspace that gets updated by a bit of "Visited!" embedded template/code/scripting attached to every relevent page (probably limited by being 'noinclude'd) and can be checked before it suggests your next landing spot (Random or otherwise). It would be a bit contrived. Even more so if you store page details with a last-viewed timestamp (either to allow you to revisit upon an update or to just allow pages seen early on to be occasionally revisited), which I'd suggest would be useful. But if it's an internal wiki page (rather than browser-side) it would probably be visible to anyone (write-restricted, I imagine) and I'm not sure that's a wise move.

Too late to necessarily help you, but the aspiring completist could simply progress logically (not 'Special:Random'ly) from Comic 1 on up (or the current latest on down, with future 'latest's being a different progression to track) and keep a note of where you've got to after each binge-session of Next/Previous following. That'd catch most of the comics, less those that are unnumbered for various reasons. It could be done wikiwise with a variation on the 'Latest Comic' (global) tracker, but again with a Userspace page. Or just a browser extention, updating a Bookmark/Favourites link or just jot it down on a bit of paper. Some of these would take far less effort than trying to a implement per-user shared-but-private wikimedia solution bespoke to the exacting needs of this particular Wiki. 172.70.91.205 13:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

While False

There’s now over a year ago since While False contributed for the last time. 162.158.222.5

While False’s “Explain xkcd museum” can be found here. 162.158.222.44

Furries

Someone has been adding vaguely-relaged pages to Category:Furries. Is this okay? This person's criteria seem to be that anything related to anthropomorphic animals (including anything related to Narnia) is "furry"; they also consider anything pertaining to knots or cheese graters to be furry-related. (The knot and grater things are NSFW inside jokes within the furry fandom.)

My opinion is that anything with anthropomorphic animals is close enough to fall under the furry category (after all, anthropomorphic animals are basically what define the furry fandom), but individual Narnia-related pages don't need to be tagged as furry. Category:Chronicles of Narnia being a subcat of Furries is enough IMO. As for knots and graters, I don't think those also should be enough to tag someone.

What do you all think? 172.71.146.55 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

My opinion: that it must depict furries subculture or its unambiguous inspirations.

I see that Category:Chronicles of Narnia has been labeled such, but this implies that 969: Delta-P (amongst others) includes furries.

I'd also argue that merely 'talking animals' aren't sufficient to be "furrie". 1503: Squirrel Plan (not catted... yet!) are still ultimately scuiromorphic squirrels. 'Intelligent' animals, and 'translator-microbed' for our benefit, but barely different in depiction from any other typical appearance. YMMV.

And if a long-standing comic has not been given a long-standing category until you 'spot' the connection, then it might be obscure and need (in-line) justification. See the markup (and edit-history) of the Lowercase in 739: Malamanteau as an example of perhaps why and how.

...in particular, when someone made 1762: Moving Boxes an example of "Furries", someone else thought it was (improperly) due to the word "Hooves", when it was really due to "Knots". Equally improperly, IMO, given that various types of knot were mentioned in the Explanation, but certainly no references there to Furries (or even to more 'obvious' kinks than furry-fandom, with or without extant categories or obvious interest by Randall). Personally, I thought it had been about the word "Kits" (c.f. "cubs"), not that I agreed with that assertion either. So do add an in-line comment, and it might help justify it to future editors who don't see what you see. Still arguable, but at least avoids arguing cross-purposes.

To summarise, unless you consider everything with Animals in it (or at least every one with animals being 'odd' in any human-relatable way) as potential Furries-fodder, it really must be obviously referencing Furrie-subculture. Enough to be considered worthy a mention in the Explanation as well, not just because of a tenuous word-association or imagery inadvertently triggering an obscure personal interests. (There's a comic that specifically makes me think "Caramel", but it has nothing intrinsically to do with (e.g.) Category:Food. I know why it makes me think that, but wouldn't consider it meaningful to anyone else. Even if it might for a small subculture, however, it still wouldn't actually be a valid category to apply if there was no reason for Randall to have had that same association in mind.)

Categories should not include much more true material than they reasonably need to, just on the offchance that there's a totally unintended link. (And if all the Narnia references need cat:Furries, they also need cat:Animals. I might argue that cat:Religion is at least as necessary, just for every mention/hint of Aslan. But I wouldn't actually flood that option, either.) 172.71.242.207 10:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there are enough pages in the category as of right now (22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)), but seeing as I don't know all the references (what's so funny about knots and cheese graters?) it's obvious that I'm just William Shatner's generation 💅 descendant who pretends to be a furry for clout online. So I'm not sure whether you should trust me. --Your favorite aura doggo (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the significance of the word "crap" here?

I often see vague references to "crap" in discussions on this wiki, but I don't understand the meaning. Of course, I *do* know what the literal definition of "crap" is; I just don't know the significance here. It doesn't seem to be a word used particularly often in xkcd, so what is the significance here? 108.162.245.49 02:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you're refering to the escapades of a particular idiot (and possibly copycats). The actions conducted might well be refered to by various verb forms/etc of the word.

Though there are 'legitimate' uses of the word in comics, in context, I don't think there is any particular Randallesque significance that you need to worry about. 172.71.178.55 04:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! What did the particular idiot do? 172.71.150.62 22:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just particularly low-vocabulary/high-volume/zero-creativity nuisance editing Probably doesn't need dignifying by further explanation, and really not worth dwelling on. But this was just one particular type of nuisance, dealt with just as many other nuisances (by whatever hand) also were/will be. 172.70.91.212 02:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Is ReCAPTCHA really necessary?

I worry that I might be opening up a can of worms here, but here goes. For various personal reasons I don't like setting up accounts with things unless I really, really need to. I'm sure I'm not the only one. There are also people who can't set up accounts because they don't have an email address. Because we're not logged in, every time we want to make any edit or post any comment on any part of this Wiki, we have to go through multiple laborious ReCAPTCHAs. I'm sure the irony isn't lost on the rest of you that CAPTCHA/ReCAPTCHA is the butt of more than a few jokes on various XKCD comics, which imply that they are disingenuous processes whose real purpose is to farm out stultifyingly mundane computing tasks to a captive audience. Furthermore, I am editing on mobile, which can present formatting problems, rendering the ReCAPTCHA (and, by extension, my editing) impossible to complete. I know there are other ways in which this Wiki combats spam, so do we really need ReCAPTCHAs? Removing them would make this site considerably more accessible to eccentrics and Luddites such as myself. 172.70.85.13 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing you weren't here for the crap incident? 162.158.41.120 23:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as an accountless luddite (long term active and non-lurking contributor; I choose not to clutter myself with yet another account, inventing yet another apt username when I don't actually have to), it can be annoying to have to do a round or two of Traffic Light or Tractor identification. But, given the number of obvious fake accounts, it may be that removing the control would release a deluge of one-shot spams that are currently caught.

It's less trouble than the extra issue of having done a CAPTCHA successfully, submitting a ticked contribution, the explainxkcd server complaining of overload/whatever (error 503, I think) and then the necessary refresh-submit moans that I didn't give a CAPTCHA (logical enough... the side-server confirmation data probably loses synchronicity against the 'new' POST submission). And not even sure whether an other-than-CAPTCHA solution could handle that type of fail-over any better. 172.70.163.49 10:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do all the comic updates feel late to me? I only ever see them on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and weekends.

I'm in the same time zone as Randall, so it could just be a sleep schedule thing tbh. Psychoticpotato (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Quick poll of server-times for explainxkcd's BOT back to mid-February suggests that significantly more than half were before midnight Randall Mean Time (or Randall Daylight Time). That said, a long long experience has taught me not to fret the "only see it the next morning" ones (my time). They keep coming. 2916 was an outlier (almost 29 hours longer to arrive than 2910 did, assuming that wasn't a BOT delay that I'm not aware of).

In this sample, it went from an earliest time of 11:37 (servertime, remember), Q1 at 18:12, Q2 at 22:03, Q3 at 03:11 (still pre-midnight, for you and him), and the latest was 16:31 the day after. Mondays seem to be a bit lagged over Wednesdays and Fridays but, outliers apart, there doesn't seem to be much in it.

I could do a far longer sampling (I can recall of a couple-of-days-delayed ones that arrived eventually, but at least officially kept the MWF cycles going. not counting delayed-specials/etc), but there's not much to be seen recently to concern me. 172.69.79.190 23:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

New users can't create pages

Hey, you know how new users can't create their own user pages? Well, it turns out that new users can't create any pages. Could this be the autoconfirm thing? -- PDesbeginner (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

If you think about it, you'll realise that it's probable that new users can't create user pages exactly because they can't create any pages... ;) But that state of affairs won't last long, if you're patient.

...Until then, petitioning for (say) a new Category (with sufficient examples to provide a reason for it) might get you helped out by a sympathetic existing page-creator. 172.70.91.90 19:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor edit/Watch this page

Before I save an edit, how do I decide which checkbox to select? PDesbeginner (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I use the "minor edit" for fixing (my own) typos and when adding links or such to the(my) text. I never used the "watch" option but I guess you can use it to receive mail notifications if someone changes the page Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I did a test and it turns out that the "Watch this page" box makes the page get automatically added to your watchlist when you save the edit. Thanks for the help with when to select the minor edit box, but does anyone know what it actually does? PDesbeginner (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

From my experience of other wiki sites (where I have an account, thus get to see such options), it's not much more than a bit of administrivia, to allow you to mark anything that you consider not bothersome in any way (de-doubling unnecessary whitespace, trivial typo-correction, etc.) and thus letting others selectively ignore such tweaks (at least until they start to wonder why an article has gained/lost several paragraphs as part of an apparently "minor edit").

If it has any functional utility beyond just a handy user-flag, I haven't seen it. And no doubt there are those who would especially check (or have 'Bots check) so-called-minor edits, just to make sure they really are. 172.70.162.203 23:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! PDesbeginner (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

How are all you beautiful people doing? I'm quite alright myself. P?sych??otic?pot??at???o (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Red text

I found red text in the "Flowchart" comic explanation. Could you deal with it? CategoryGeneral (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In 1195: Flowchart? I don't see any there.

There are similarly named comics, and plenty of furtyer comics "that have a flowchart" so perhaps try at least telling us the number of the one you mean. 172.70.86.145 18:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The future

You know, we're not too far from a future where each and every edit to this website will have paragraphs of critical commentary. 108.162.245.210 23:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comic # 2974 explanation

Someone please hug the editor of the explanation of comic #2974. They seem a little depressed. I noticed your nitpickyness and I cared. Thank you. Also you made me laugh a bunch. 172.70.111.167 (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I don't see that myself (though there will be a number of editors, maybe the bits you mean are less obvious now) although hugs are rarely a bad idea (being careful in cases of sunburn, dermititis, excessive blisters or bubonic infections of various kinds) so free (but entirely optional!) hugs all round. Just because not all symptoms of depression are particularly obvious anyway. 172.70.162.17 14:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comic #3000

Y’all, we’re getting scarily close to comic 3000. Any bets on what it’ll be about? 42.book.addict (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on that in a couple of months... ;) 172.70.162.164 04:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I myself think that it’s going to be a continuation of the [[Category:xkcd Phones|xkcd phones]] series. 42.book.addict (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

(You probably meant to use something like [[:Category:xkcd Phones|xkcd phones]], which appears as the now clickable: xkcd phones ...or something similar. FYI.) 141.101.98.62 20:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

nothing, you get nothing >:[ Caliban (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC) It was SOOO disappointing and just a regular comic :( Thehydraclone (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Trouble finding comic about how kids read too many comics

Iirc, it was a comic that had newspaper quotes from various times in history. One was that kids read too many comics, one was that kids look out the window too much. Maybe one on too many video games, and/or too much tv. And maybe one on reading. Anyway, I'm having trouble finding it because the keywords are too vague. And "xkcd comic" just brings me to the homepage. Any help would be appreciated 🙏 172.70.131.6 04:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

1601: Isolation 42.book.addict (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct name

What’s the correct name for this wiki? ExplainXKCD is what I use, but there’s also Explainxkcd or explainxkcd or explain xkcd. Please advise for all of us pedantic editors. 42.book.addict (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A question for the ages. The case of "xkcd" itself is officially all lowered, and all domain names are inherently caseless, whilst xkcd's (usual) comic-text is sᴍᴀʟʟᴄᴀᴘs (or, rather, partly camel-cased SᴍᴀʟʟCᴀᴘs). If I don't use "explainxkcd" I might go for "ExplainXkcd" or "explainXkcd" (the latter two probably wrong, but at least adds degrees of parsability, maybe with some cringing). There's even a case (NPI!) to call it "EXPLAINxkcd", but I wouldn't. 172.71.26.138 10:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve also noticed that if you substitute x for 23, k for 11, c for 3, and d for 4, as that is the order that they appear in the English alphabet, those four numbers add up to 42, or the answer to life, the universe and everything else. Is this intentional? Has anybody else noticed this? 42.book.addict (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes 172.68.205.150 22:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Coincidence

I just used the random page feature and got comic 498: Secretary: Part 5 twice in a row and got 496: Secretary: Part 3 on the third! Its not important but I just think its neatPego (talk)

Horrendously Cursed numbers

I need them. Currently, my favorite (which I found by a whole lot of guesswork) is 2^2.321928094886. It equals 5. -P?sych??otic?pot??at???o (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It happened to bring a typo on page 1506: xkcloud to my attention. ConscriptGlossary (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Harris banner

Will there be an article archiving and explaining the Harris banner on xkcd.com as of my typing this? https://imgs.xkcd.com/news/[email protected] Nitpicking (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Check Header text. 42.book.addict (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Nitpicking (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

IP Editing Doesn’t Make Sense

I've read various arguments for why IP editing is allowed, or even a 'good idea'. I've read none that was compelling. Here are my reasons why I think it's not a good idea, and why it should be banned:

Per WP:ISU, user names that imply shared use are not allowed, so why is editing using an IP address allowed, given that IP addresses usually are shared? If the logic behind this policy is that an edit must be traceable to an individual editor, not a collective entity, then allowing anonymous editing from an IP address flies squarely in the face of that. IP editing accounts for a large chunk of vandalism, disruptive editing, BLP violations, etc., and stopping it would reduce the cleanup workload for other editors. Using multiple IP addresses, either intentionally or unintentionally, fragments a user's edit history, and makes it difficult, in some cases virtually impossible, to detect editing patterns and decipher intentions. The 'hassle' of registering really is not great, and therefore I don't buy the argument that mandatory registration would make it difficult to recruit new editors. It's too easy for a registered editor to get around certain rules (such as creators not being allowed to remove speedy tags from their own articles) by logging out and editing under IP. The whole malarkey about hiding IP addresses, allegedly for privacy reasons (!), would go away if IP editing weren't an option. To be clear, I think everyone should be able to access the site without registering, and anyone should be allowed to edit, just not edit without registering. In that sense it's not that different from using a public library: you're welcome to browse the collection, access the reference section, etc. without anyone asking you any questions, but if you want to take a book home, you need to get a library card from the nice librarian first.

And a further clarification: I've nothing against users who edit under IP; my issue is with the system which allows this. As long as it is allowed, users are of course welcome to make use of this. I just think it shouldn't be allowed -- IP Addresses Don’t Make Sense (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

As an habitual IP, far for it for me to get involved in the argument. I will say that sometimes think it'd be nice to have a "history" that proves my actual involvement (the other day I came across a contribution from 2013 that was clearly mine), but those moments pass when I see how easy (too easy) it is to have gotten myself an account. Witness the various accounts that get conjoured up on a whim, 'yourself' included... You're not helping the cause by doing this.

If you're a named user, normally, then you're just giving more reasons for locking everyone into far more restrictions than your nominal argument suggests, and forgetting how much non-disrupting (indeed, fixing) behaviour is also done by everyone. The perfect situation? Maybe not. But there are worse ones, for anyone who has thought about it for any time. Do you want my suggestions? I've got a whole shopping list of them, but you won't want to hear about them. 172.69.194.227 03:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

when did xkcd jump the shark

like, when exactly do you feel xkcd jumped the shark (if at all)? Caliban (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If it has, than put me down as "likes shark-jumping". I've been directly enjoying (if not always as caught up with as I am these days) xkcd since before 195: Map of the Internet (quite possibly back into only double-figures, but hard to know what I later rewound back to; or quite how far back I subsequently joined the fora and/or started explainxkcding, as both histories are shrouded behind data that's either now lost or inconveniently anonymised).

Not everything is as geeky as that, but it doesn't have to be. Horses for courses, naturally. (Perhaps lasagna?) If everyone who had such a moment actually decides to tell you their answer, probably could be up to 3000 or so distinct replies. ("It was the flying ferret" "Those spiders always did it for me" ...) To clarify, there may be many valid answers, but the people who would give them are far more likely not to be here to answer your question. If anybody does hover around here and want to give a definite answer of why they no longer like xkcd, then bear in mind that they're more the exception than the rule. Twice-over! 172.71.122.102 14:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 42.book.addict here to put in my own two cents (check my user page on why I’m an IP). I would like to comment that I have noticed that I very much enjoy the older (albeit lower quality and resolution) comics than before. I think that I like the old xkcd strips more because they were much more geeky and nerdy than now, as well as more funny and witty. I feel like Randall has adapted the strip to appeal to a larger audience, which in turn lowered how much I enjoyed it (as I’m a massive nerd/geek). I can’t give an exact number, because the Covid-19 comics were highly enjoyable and are more of an outlier. 162.158.167.117 17:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

How do I add userboxes to my page?

I saw a user with userboxes and I want to be able to continue developing my personal page. Can anyone tell my how? DollarStoreBa'al (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably the easiest thing is to look at the source of any page that has something you want to use. 'Edit', the page. You can just copy what's there, if you understand all the {{}} stuff, or even just remember what to put in those {{}}s, etc. Perhaps you could try a bit of in-situ exiting (Preview if you want modify to understand, but don't fully Save... at least not until you're working back in your own userspace).

Not knowing how much you know about wikisyntax/markup, I could be either overexplaining or explaining entirely over your head by saying something like the following, but if it's useful (now, or once you've started), then you're welcome:

• You can use templates by editing in the {{template}} text, with the appropriate name there.
• Some of them accept/need parameters, which you use by adding a "|" symbol after the name and then a parameter. Add more parameters by adding further "|", for first(, second, third, etc) parameters, as necessary, if that's how the template concerned works.
• Some templates accept/need "|paramName=paramData" for certain things that can control control (look at any comic page, and how the {{comic}} is used, and note that "whitespace is (relatively) free"!), so look out for that.
• Templates can nest... A {{notice}} might have a {{w}}(ikipedia link) within it. And there's a whole flow-control 'language' of making complex branching decisions so don't be surprised to see loads of {s and }s (usually doubled, perhaps tripled, and singly in 'wikitable' markup) in things you're trying to use.
• Then there's the rest of the wikimarkup... Simple formatting to linking (external website, page on this wiki, interwiki formats (though some of those have templates ready to simplify!), etc). There's some things (handy relevent shortcuts) unique to this site, other things fairly universal. The general userbox format isn't that different from many other wikiprojects, but you may find something or other a bit more 'tuned' to our needs.
• Try things out. Remember: "Show Preview" is your friend. (There's also the Sandboxes, but you usually don't need to fully save something, leaving its remnants in a page history, to learn thst it works... Or, more usefully, that it doesn't (or not as you expect).

...any use? Could be telling you things you actually know, or you're about to ask about the {}s again. But at least look at the userbox markup, that you want to emulate, and then apply what you already can deduce to some testing to see what the bits you can't deduce actually do. Then you may have nice questions which are more straightforward (or at least direct!) for us to answer. ;)

And this is my general advice to anyone (where I'm unsure what level of experience they're thrning up with). If it becomes clear that more technical replies are needed (assuming I can give them!), or if we need to go back to more basic principles, then I would adjust. But you have at least been able to do some edits, so probably don't need module 1 part 1 of Wiki 101. 172.70.85.4 22:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

My advice? Copy a box from the source of a user page that has them (copy the text within the braces, including the braces), and mess with some of the parameters until you get what you want. If you feel like you can understand it, you can also look at the {{userbox}} template and try to see what the possible parameters are, but the template is pretty complicated. I'm pretty sure that all of the parameters are named, so the order shouldn't matter. guess who (if you desire conversing | what i have done) 03:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Who is this?

what is User:Lettherebedarklight?

They're a user of this wiki, just like you. They might have caught your attention because they're currently edit warring with an admin and seem to be resolutely against the idea of having a normal signature or talk page. --FaviFake (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

no, I mean his user page just redirects to his user talk - Bb777 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly! See the second and third links in my message --FaviFake (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Visual editing

why is the visual editor not here yet? - Bb777 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Because the only person who has access to the backend has gone dark and nobody else has access (which is also why the site is collapsing). You can read more about this in the Technical and Admin requests portals. At this point, we're lucky the wiki hasn't completely broken down already. --FaviFake (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that the visual editor gives a chance of really weird markup (WYSIWYG, yes... probably, but there's plenty of chance to do silly things that you'd never do if you actually saw the code).

Though the site isn't actually collapsing. It always has a chance of collapsing, of course, just like any site (fully maintained or not). but the running issues with it are either non-serious things that updating won't help (continual 'spam attack' attempts, though it can be shown that it's already set up to be pretty proofed against most of them and most attacks continue to be dumber than the age-old system set up to prevent them from doing too much, with a high proportuon of the rest still dumber than the 'Bot that currently adds even more protection, and ultimately even those that get past that get handled by the existing userbase) or easily avoided issues (you can't use MathML like you used to be able to, but there's alternatives to that in most circumstances). 172.68.205.92 16:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

by owner of the wiki, you mean (the mysterious) User:Jeff? - Bb777 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Precisely --FaviFake (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

soup

what is Template:soup for? - Bb777 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess it's a userbox, see some examples here. --FaviFake (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

deleting pages

does anyone here know how to delete pages? -- Bb777 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

You add "[[Category: Pages to delete]]" and hope an admin eventually deletes it. --FaviFake (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Google Chrome is now (again) truncating TITLE TEXT in webpages incl. XKCD

Greetings, As of early April 2025, we’ve noticed that Google Chrome is no longer displaying to us the complete TITLE TEXT when we mouseover an XKCD image. This appears to be a regression of earlier-reported issues, going back 12 years or more.

We’ve been using m.xkcd.com on my mobile devices, and we may begin to prefer it on desktop as well, since the mobile rendering is the best way we’ve found to access the complete Title Text without browser interference.

Coming here because, perhaps, many readers of ExplainXKCD might need explained why the Title Text no longer makes a lot of sense with the ellipses, and also, we’ve no idea how to access the remainder of the text from the browser UI, without going into DevTools or something.

Note: This also affects images and Title Text here on Explainxkcd itself!!!

We’re using a ChromeOS Chromebook, Stable channel:

 Version 134.0.6998.183 (Official Build) (64-bit)

Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In my experience with Chrome for Android, it just doesn't have the space to display the text in the window that it gives. (Latest comic ends with "an emitted SIm card hitting...") That also happens with (my prefered choice of browser) Firefox for Android. (That ends with "a emitted SIM card hitting the side ...", for reference.) It's just a function of the screen-real-estate and the fitting it in with all the "Copy link / Share link / Share image / [etc]" options that this interface needs.

Don't know about ChromeOS and Chromebook, all that much, but I get the impression it works more with the tablet paradigm rather than a normal laptop one (like the one I'm usong here, which gives a nice hover-text rendition of the whole job), and assumes and/or is a lower resolution so subject to such pixelated real-estate issues as I mention.

That applies to the xkcd.com site. Here on explainxkcd.com it displays as (the beginning, and then) "and you listen very carefully..." on one line and then the URL of "explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:decay_chain_2x.png" on the next, above the various "click options". I believe that's to do with the fact that the explainxkcd image is an href (which gets represented in that space too), whereas the xkcd.com one is perfectly happy to just give me (as much as it can of) the "title=..." parameter of the img-tag.

...and I've learnt not to worry about that. It's a technical limit that isn't any website's fault (well, maybe it's the fault of having too long a title-text), and the best that any browser under the circumstances can do.

There's two or three main ways of seeing the whole thing though:

1. Go and edit the URL to add "view-source:" in front of it, and look at the source (that's how it works for Android Chrome, I imagine it's how it works in ChromeOS Chrome, it also works in both Windows and Android Firefox, and seems to be industry standard). Awkward, perhaps, to narrow down the appropriate length of markup tagging and read it straight, but it's there.
   • Noting that a recent update of the Android Chrome started to make the default action of a URL of "view-soirce:<validURL>" to open a search up on the "view-soirce:<validURL>" line. One has to be careful to eschew using the enter/return key as that makes use of the "magnifying glass" option, you have to choose the second (non-default) "globe-like thing" option which depicts "yes, use this exact 'address'". No, I don't know what they messed with, and why they messed with it, and it's not the only thing that has changed recently with the UI that I really rather they hadn't changed, but took a while for me to dig up an answer about that so I freely share it in anticipation of it being important to someone else who remains similarly confused.
2. Easiest thing is to come here to explainxkcd, and don't bother with the hover-over (or whatever-you-do-to-get-the-title-text) text, at all. It's written beneath all (or nearly all?) Explanation Page images in plain sight. No hovering needed. Should be complete, unless the BOT (or someone who later comes along) has managed to mess it up, but then somebody (else) will probably fix it to how it really should be, and any remaining pecularities gets documented in the Explanation and/or its Talk.
3. There's also maybe dedicated xkcd viewers (I've got three installed from the Android store, just because I haven't yet decided that any one does everything I want it to do: "xkcd", "xkcd Browser" and "XKCDroid") that do at least try to be more hassle-free with their presentation of the hover-over title text. Don't know if you have such options under the ChromeOS system, but with even Windows going for 'app store' functionality behind it (not that I use it, save for very particular elements) I would rather hope that there'd be ports/clones of similar functionality that you can look at.

I can easily imagine that the crew behind Chrome have indeed been messing around with your particular build. Like I said, things keep changing to my own instance, althugh the biggest problem I have is often that when editing it doesn't recognise the need to pop up the on-screen keyboard until I've changed tabs away from the editing page and back again, then I can actually do something (beyond cut/copy/paste actions, which sometimes is enough). But that's probably not going to affect you like it does me.

And I don't use any "m.site.url" version of anything, if I can help it. Most mobile-site implementations tend to assume that I'm viewing in extreme portrait mode (which I'm not) and rearrange themselves in a way that really doesn't work in my prefered landscape orienttion, and that's just the start. As I don't do this, the above testing/examples I give was all done on "(explain)xkcd.com", not "m.xkcd.com" or whatever. But I don't see that it'll make a material difference to my checks and enumerations I've just done on your behalf. And still, hopefully, helps you understand my conclusion that... well, use one or other of my 'get arounds' (number 2?) and let Chromebook Chrome go and do whatever it feels like with hovertexts, 'cos you're not too bothered about it. Sound good? 172.70.58.5 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

An apology

Hello. I am a former vandal; I am the one who ran the "crap" bot and posted the Soviet flags; I also did smaller-scale vandalism several times. I'm not sure exactly when I quit, but it's been a year or two. I'm sorry for the trouble I caused, and I won't do it again. 172.71.158.116 16:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Care to explain what your reasoning was? --FaviFake (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't really have any reasoning; I just (stupidly) thought it was funny. I don't want to reveal my exact age, but I was in my early-to-mid teen years then; it was just immature "humor." 172.69.23.125 21:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this HTML?

I wonder if this is HTML. <h1> Is this h1? </h1> [note by FaviFake (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC): nowikied because breaks toc] Aprilfoolsupdate! (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

turns out h1 is the same as == Aprilfoolsupdate! (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it's not, if you check.

Wiki ==ed header is:

<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="is_this_HTML.3F">is this HTML?</span> (+ the thing that gives you the "[edit]" link, etc, to the end of the h2-entity)

Wiki 'forced' H1 is:

<h1><span class="mw-headline" id="Is_this_h1.3F">Is this h1?</span></h1> (and nothing else)

It's not very obvious, but H1/= and H2/== are actually slightly different.

<H1>H1 text...</H1> [note by FaviFake (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC): nowikied because breaks toc]

H2 text...

For contrast, this is H3

Let's just say that the full range from = to ====== match H1 to H6 (give or take other differences, and I haven't checked what even greater "="-strings might or might not do), but mixing established wikimarkup and XML-family markup is best done with care and with good reason (e.g. to deliberately not invoke Table Of Contents-type sectioning? ...no, apparently not even that!).

And you know that there's always the Sandbox pages (or, even better, edit something, Preview it, view the Preview's source and then don't "Save Changes" ...unless you still need to for some other reason) as a better alternative to 'asking' ultimately rhetorical questions in here. (And inviting potentially rhetorical answers, like this one.)

You seem to have an enquiring mind, which is good. But remember that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". I'm only giving you a bit of extra knowledge here, but also adding about the caution you should take. Please don't be a nuisance with it, unintentionally or otherwise. 162.158.216.104 06:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I create a user page for myself?

I do not know how to create a user page for myself -- Log of n (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

It helps if you remember to sign things. But it looks like you might be able to create it (account old enough and contributed enough).

If you see the redlinked links to your (non-existing, at first) "User:" and "User talk:" pages, in your usual signature (or the one I gave you, just above), you should be able to click on them and get the option to create them to put things in. Other places you can find those redlinks is in page-histories, your user-contributions and the RecentChanges list, in various slightly different ways. Or, having created User: space, click on the (redlinked) Discussion tab, or vice-versa.

Try it, see if it works. If it doesn't, then anyone can create those pages for you (who can create any), but I don't think that's necessary for you. If you get rebuffed, let us know and someone will either give you better instructions or help you out directly.

(The reverse is true, too: if you can create your own User: pages, you can create anybody else's who needs them, and more besides. But probably best if you don't just go finding redlinks and making them non-red, just because you can. Hold off on that, as it's too easy to create pages for long-idle accounts, spam-accounts or even regular editors who don't want their pages (yet?). If a very new account asks, maybe they need help, not yet having reached the threshold, but more experienced people often oblige after not too long. Follow their lead, learn from them before going mad with power... ;)

...should this be in the FAQ? Isn't it already? Without getting exact about the thresholds needed (in case they're adjusted, if nothing else), I'm sure this could be written there. I'd check, but it's not like I can edit it (or create pages) as I currently am. Nor do I feel the need to. 172.70.91.182 17:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I found a comic site.

It's called euge.ca and it's a lot inspired by XKCD. Could we explain it together? ExplainEuge.ca (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Could we do that in my user page? ExplainEuge.ca (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

But your user page isn’t created... there, now it is ^April_fools^update!(talk) 12:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

How's that related to xkcd? We don't explain things "inspired by" xkcd... --FaviFake (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Lonely Comic explanations

It’s kinda strange to see some of the earlier comics have just a few paragraphs and minimal discussions while others have dozens of paragraphs (ok, maybe not that much, but you get the idea) and hundreds of discussions. I felt lonely when visiting those lonely explanations Aprilfoolsupdate! (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to mark them as incomplete if they don't explain the comic enough! However, most of the early xkcd comics were simple drawings or simple jokes that didn't need a long explanation. --FaviFake (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Leaderboard score

What does the score on the leaderboard mean? What are the rules of score? ^April_fools^update!(talk) 07:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User box

?	Can someone tell me what’s a userbox?

 Aprilfoolsupdate!(talk) 12:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You'll find a lot more answers if you type the same thing on google and add "Wikipedia" at the end: https://www.google.com/search?q=Can+someone+tell+me+what%E2%80%99s+a+userbox%3F+wikiepdia&num=10&newwindow=1&udm=14&sxsrf=AE3TifO4CvTB3NGTONgx7ci3eXPbJh2B1g%3A1754574833361&uact=5 --FaviFake (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Artificial Intelligence

We have a category titled "Artificial Intelligence" (Category:Artificial Intelligence). Shouldn't that be Category:Artificial intelligence with a lower-case "i"? --208.59.176.206 01:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Tricky. Wikipedia has it as Artificial intelligence, and use it as the mid-sentence "artificial intelligence", but also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence. It's something that can be used as a compound-noun title (thus deserves full title-case), unless you're wondering "if, one day, perhaps, we will truly encounter an artificial intelligence of some kind", in unironic use of the original words.

For most purposes, I think, in the comics "AI" (the abbreviated title of the subject) is used/meant, so I suspect that it'd be the more titular umbrella of things (including, or at least aspiring to, AGI, etc) that applies.

I don't see any obvious wikipedia discussions about whether or not to (have) capitalise(d) the term. I suspect that it just was assumed as default and everyone understands that a discussion of "artificial intelligence" can be refered to as "AI", there, but wouldn't complain about any variation other than "ai". ;) Whether umbrella title or 'just words' is used here... I don't think it matters (i.e. no change needed, meaning least fuss in not 'correctiny' it in all the places it would need to be). But a question could still be asked, in case there's a different consensus from my own 'feeling' about this. 92.23.2.228 10:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Given how artificial intelligence's abbreviation is "AI" but not "Ai"... (just my own opinion) Cream Starlight (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

What if pic explain

Can someone explain to me what is ? ^April_fools^update!(talk) 13:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That'd depend upon what the person who created {{brda}} meant it to be, and I'd ask them, not the community. (I've just asked them, myself, for my own curiosity. Or, rather if I can help them do what they thought they wanted to do.) Probably just an experiment. Maybe one that didn't work, because of not knowing how to do what they wanted to do. Or possibly even why they wanted it in the first place.

As has been said, before, it's very easy to create site pages (if you can at all), though it might be best to ask others first for advice, if you're fairly new to the whole concept. 92.23.2.228 17:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that was you...

So... I guess you're asking what the actual picture is, then? (And is that reason why you created the template, or something else?)

It's an image that's present (in 'footnote-3') in that particular What-If article, which says ">Here's an image which is great for annoying a few specific groups of people:", and following the appearance of the "Breaking Bad" logo (using the chemical symbols for Bromine and Barium, as a stylistic choice). And I'd say that it probably annoys (amongst other people):

• Chemists, who might or might not know of Davyum, but either way know that it doesn't mean anything.
• Fans of Breaking Bad
• Fans of Twilight (perhaps, though why this and not the non-footnote "Twilight: Breaking Dawn" 'poster' below?
• People who think that images shouldn't appear in popover 'footnotes'
• People whose browsers can't show images in such footnotes (or even show the popover footnotes themselves)...

I'm sure you could think of a few others, perhaps even something that you yourself are. Were you possibly annoyed for not knowing what the image was? ;) 92.23.2.228 17:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

store

the store is back online wtf: https://store.xkcd.com/ (wikilink: Store) FaviFake (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"Opening soon"... -- Dtgriscom (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup" FaviFake (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The Unixkcd command "buy stuff" also works again now. PDesbeginner (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

What happened when it didn't work? It could be added to unixkcd. FaviFake (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Random Explanation Button bias towards newer articles

I've consistently noticed that the Random Explanation button below the comic is more likely to give newer explanation pages. I clicked the button 10 times and 8 of the resulting pages had an index above 3000. Is this an intentional part of the feature, or is this an issue? 169.199.168.188 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I don't know if there's a bias been built in, it would need some active effort to have made it so. (Like I think it was the early iPod shuffle that was truly as (pseudo-)random as it could be, but this could result in an immediate repeat, or consecutive tracks being 'randomly consecutive', which was interpreted as a pattern - i.s. not just an occasional coincidence. They rewrote the algorithm to make it actually less fair, random-wise, but increase the perceived randomness.)

I believe the Random Page In Category page is being used to implement a comics-only (plus certain others?) 'landing' for the Random button. Unless there's either an inherent bias towards (say) newer articles in the backend-code, could it be signs of the list of possible comics being truncated?

I just tried it myself. Decided in advance to commit to three sets of "ten random pages", to avoid a gambler's fallacy of stopping early or continuing too long, based upon the ravages/rewards of luck. But three lots (30 in total) should even out 'statistical blips' to a large degree. Interesting results:

• First ten= verizon (yes, one of those 'non-comic comics'), 2974, ngram charts (!), 3112, 1086, 3094, 1039, 3089, 3113, 111
  • ...well, high-biases, so far. And the two non-numeric ones are fairly recentlyadded pages, but on the last 'roll of the dice' it proves it does have access to historic ones, so not likely an accidental "only choose from the 1024 most recent pages" error, or some other value (though 1086 is also just before even a 2048-most-recent cutoff, too).
• Second ten= 3120, 3106, 270, 3120 (again!), 510, 2726, 3142, 3133, 3112, 1000
  • ...still a 3000+ bias, but still no obvious absolute reason for it.
• Third ten= 3125, 3136, verizon (again!), 3109, 3141, 3124, 3146, 515, 3123, 3095
  • ...just as strange. Makes me wonder if I should have aimed for ten 'tens', but not as a post-facto decision.

Median number (excluding the no-number comics) is 3109, mean is 2459ish. Two numbers seen twice (3112 and 3120, plus verizon reappeared), perhaps more than expected through chance, and both in the 3000+ range (though counting them only singly doesn't 'unskew' the averages much). Unlikely results?

Of course, someone who tries the same test for themself could end up with an equal sub-1000 apparent bias, from a reversion to the mean. Or, if it's truly a fair random result, a perfectly sane-looking evenish distribution. Still, on the above results, I'd dig into the fairness of the category-chooser, but that code is beyond my sight. Or double-check that the particular composite Category being chosen from doesn't (for example) include 3000+ comic numbers multiple times, making their choosing a significantly more significant chance than otherwise.

I'll leave that to those that last edited the sidebar (which I used) or Comic template (which has its own call-out 'Random' button, which may or may not be the same thing). 82.132.215.9 01:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yes they are the same thing, and I have no idea why this is happening. All pages are correctly included in the list, you can check at Category:All pages. Any help would be appreciated!!! FaviFake (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

it's because the random button isn't random. see also T200703. raeb 05:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

:( ㅤ FaviFake (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this would need Jeff to go in and tweak the button to make it truly random, although that might make it seem less so... --DollarStoreBa'al^converse 16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As it is right now, the random button feels very much not random, so I think any change would help loads. Willintendo (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel that we need to address the XY problem present here. What is the Random button for? Who uses the Random button? Why do they use it? Is it an important and indispensable tool, or just a toy? Personally, I see no utility in it; simply a novelty or something to fall back on when we are bored of aimless doomscrolls. The interesting part is that “fixing” or adjusting the distribution is more or less a straightforward database issue and not one of coding. But, is there some reason here on this wiki for anyone to expend the labor and time for such a task? Surely we have bigger fish to fry? Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If people want to jump to a random comic, they can have the explanation ready if they don't understand it, so it's better than using Randall's "Random" button on xkcd. When it works, at least... FaviFake (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That is a complete tautology. In no way does that get to the root question here: why would anyone want a "random comic"? Elizium23 (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Because they want to browse xkcd comics in a random order, as they are used to doing on xkcd.com. FaviFake (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The random comic utility allows users to peruse the wiki in a fashion that shows them 'fresh' content. Searching sequentially (or via chaining links) often runs into 'runs' of comics that have already been (or recently been) read. This is likely why the site 'xkcd.com' has a random button in the centre of its navigation controls. However, the button there actually provides random content - while on this wiki, a strong bias for the 3000+ comics makes it show you the same ~200 comics around 25% of the time (from 250 samples I did, see graph). This does noticeably impact the experience of random comics, though whether that is worth the effort fixing is another question. Sameldacamel34 (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You see, it is quite instructive that all replies must resort to tautologies and circular reasoning in order to justify this flawed feature. Do we need to engage in “The Five whys” to drill down to the root of what we’re after here? Because if we have nothing but a superficial justification, then this feature is really, really unnecessary after all. Elizium23 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If someone really did seek “fresh content” here on this particular wiki, all you need to do is run a normal RNG, because literally all of our articles are sequentially numbered according to xkcd publication. Just run your RNG and put a random number, and there is your fresh article content. I know it’s not “built in”... but who is really bothered? Elizium23 (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The situation is that the "Random" button was always assumed to operate as truly biasless PRNG, and may well have been in the past. It was news to everyone to learn that (after much effort of making the Random Button randomly select only upon comics and comic-like-pages, but still specifically not Talk-pages for the same, Community Portal, Categories, etc, all of which may be intetresting but not a "Random comic") we ended up with a now drastically obvious update-time biased version, or however one might better briefly describe it.

There's no superficial tautology in that the Random Comic button would be used by anyone wishing to see a Random Comic. It was probably the original main justifiction, even before it was made to be so comic-specific, and it remains the current justification. Regardless of whether it now (or even earlier, before it was noticed) didn't necessarily work as flawlessly as assumed once this particular change was made in all good faith.

Please do not insult people about something that you clearly did not understand, or pay attention to on the previous occasions when both this problem and the actual proposed/implemented MediaWiki navbar changes were being discussed at length. If you have a solution to this, however, I'm sure those that can implement said solution would be happy to listen to your greater wisdom in this matter. 81.179.199.253 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It is by no means a personal insult to tell y'all that you are relying on a tautology, but it does indeed insult my intelligence, and that of onlookers, to insist that it is somehow not a tautology that “the Random button is used to see a random explanation”. Get real. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, friend... 81.179.199.253 12:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The 'previous' button allows the user to view the previous comic. This, combined with the 'next', 'skip to first', and 'skip to end buttons', give the ability to browse sequentially - both to navigate back and forth among recent comics and to view the whole archive in chronological order. The 'random' button permits non-sequential navigation - to jump to fresh content (much like a shuffle feature on a playlist). While I agree that it serves a more novel purpose than the other navigation buttons, it is still used and found useful by many here on this wiki. Of course, I could manually do RNG (as I did in my testing) but it is a common enough thing to warrant a button - hence why the button exists. The issue is that the button is decidedly not random - enough for people to notice.

Also, please point out where in this reply and my above reply where I used "X implies X therefore X is true" as an argument. I believe I provided an explanation on why people want a 'random comic' per your question. Functional random button. Why? People want random comics. Why? Because other methods of browsing show repetitive and recently seen content. Why? Overly familiar content is less engaging and doesn't prompt any new lines of thought. Why? Because people want to continue engaging in Randall's content and how the community interacts and interprets his art. Why? (I'm sure you can figure this last one out) Sameldacamel34 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I like using the random button quite a lot, it's a different, more free-feeling way to browse comics (especially if you haven't read all of them). Even if someone dosen't feel like there's a need for a specific feature, other people may like that feature is a valuable inclusion. It's similar to how someone may feel like the inclusion of button remapping in a video game is redundant and useless, but there are many who like the options and use those features to their full effects. Willintendo (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "Random comic" button in the sidebar is also biased; even when it picks an older comic, it seems to pick the same one or two dozen older comics every time. Are we using RANDU, or some other PRNG that's only marginally better than the one in 221? Promethean (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The old random button on the sidebar used to take people to this link: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Random However, now the link takes people to https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:RandomInCatagory/All_pages Interestingly, the old link still works great, and seems to take you to a completely unbiased random page. If we simply switched the link on the sidebar and even the random button, I think the issue would be totally resolved (I know the old link because I saved it as one of my bookmarks to pull up a random page at any time). Willintendo (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I think (I didn't take part in the decision, but I remember the switch), it was because Special:Random doesn't just take you to comic pages, but potentially anything in the main-space of articles (not Talk:, etc). Though there's an overwhelming number of them, and the few non-[4321: Comic Name] pages that aren't 'honourary' comics (thus got let back in to the Random Comic process via fiddling them into a suitable Category for Special:RandomInCategory to use) are also either interesting or a rare case of needing to ask for a new Random example that satisfies mofe. So perhaps if we revert to plain-old-Random, it would be acceptable. But "Random Page" would be a better description, lest we get complaints about an anomolous link to the record of all xkcd site headers, or somesuch... ;) Just a consideration, if anyone's seriously pondering that. 82.132.236.193 16:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah at this point I think it's better if we switch back the link. Not sure about chnging the label, we want people to understand it's a cool feature that lets you browse random comics, and "random page" doesn't sound exciting. FaviFake (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This issue should be fixed now, I've created a custom page for it which only directs to comic pages and is unbiased. I've also added the "Random explanation" button to non-numbered comic pages, since it can link to those at well. Let me know if there are any issues! Celene (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: I'm kind of annoyed by how the earlier comics (which have their bottom bar replaced with an original-ordering variant) don't have a random explanation button. You can still press it on the sidebar of course, but that's kind of hard to see. I don't know of a good alternative, though. Open to suggestions on this, please share. Celene (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I need to find this specific comic or I will explode

I FORGET WHICH ONE IT IS BUT THERE'S A COMIC THAT HAS AIRBRUSHIGN PAINT SLITS... I KNOW THAT PHRASE IS USED BUT I CAN'TT FIND IT ANYWEHRWE HGELP -P?sych??otic?pot??at???o (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "Airbrushing paint slits"... Nothing comes to my mind, or to the obvious searches (sub-searches/variations/etc). One of the 5-Minute Copies has "Airbrush" as a label of the not-so-hot 'cover girl' image, but that's not really matching anything else. Then there's 967: Prairie which plays on the twin-slit experiment. And plenty of even less relevent ones. Always possible it's somewhere outside of 'regular' xkcd.com (or what-ifs) that isn't really mentioned here or on via a more general internet search, so is it one of those things that might be semi-paywalled?

Perhaps something more about it (and better typed?) would be useful. 2.98.65.8 23:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

what exactly do you mean by "semi-paywalled"? i don't know of anything that Randall makes us pay for aside from the books, and i've got all of those save for What If? 10th Anniversary. again, i can't find it anywhere. even on page 2 of google. [shudder] -P?sych??otic?pot??at???o (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There were some items, in particular the New York Times: Good Question items, that aren't totally open-access.

As you don't realise this, I'm guessing there's no reason why your 'missing' comic might have been there. But, like the prior respondant, I can't recall anything else that sounds like what you describe. That wasn't already mentioned. 82.132.245.209 06:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous and is kept for historical purposes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current discussion page. Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4