explain xkcd talk:Explanation Improvement Project

Implementation

Here's how the {{This Week's Explanation for Improvement barnstar}} looks like for first-time participants of This Week's Explanation for Improvement:

Your nomination of 395: Morning was successful!

Congratulations, Explanation Improvement Project! Your nomination of 395: Morning for a week in September 2026 was successful! The explanation is now featured as This Week's Explanation for Improvement on the Main Page and in the site-wide banner for the next seven days and your username is credited in the TWEFI notice above the discussion section for the comic. Thank you for taking the time to spot the explanation and make the case for it. If you have a moment, please consider keeping things going! You can nominate another explanation that you think could use some attention or comment on the current nominations to help the community decide what gets featured next. Thank you! ~~~~

The current TWEFI will be tagged with {{This Week's Explanation for Improvement banner}}:

This comic has been selected as This Week's Explanation for Improvement. Anyone is encouraged to help explain this comic! Every little bit counts; even just adding a sentence or fixing a typo is another step towards improving the wiki for everyone. Suggested improvements:   ERROR: Please add a few suggestions for editing the explanation! Click here to get started! If you are new to wiki editing, see our editing FAQ for guidance, or simply learn by doing!

The {{This Week's Explanation for Improvement talk page notice}} template is automatically applied by the {{comic discussion}} template when a nomination is successful or unsuccessful:

{{{1}}}

The colour palette is the following:

• Green #006622
  • Light green #e3f2e4

• Blue #3366cc
  • Light blue #e8eeff

• Grey #72777d
  • Light grey #eaecf0

FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

This Week's Explanation for Improvement

Moved from Special:Diff/414665.

Why don't we do Article of the Day like other wikipedias? We could do comics but also explanation articles like for specific charecters (like Black Hat or Randall) and such. I just think it could be cool and help new users discover more about the wiki ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Black Hat's Hat (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Great idea! We had a similar program a decade ago, but that was back when we didn't explain every comic (The sitenotice looked like this. But I guess we can identify explanations that need to be updated (such as those about now-outdated technology jokes), lengthened, or improved in some other way. It should probably be a week-long event, not daily.

How are we going to make a list of the most outdated or worse explanations to select as "today's explanation for improvement"? Are there any technical ways to find the least recently edited pages or the ones written badly? FaviFake (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

After doing some research on how Wikipedia does it, I'd say we should have people nominate articles to be featured every week. We could have a specific thread somewhere where people can suggest articles that might need to be revised/rexplained/redone. Afterwards an admin/trusted user or someone could choose a specific article to be featured. We should probably avoid comics and pages already on the list for incomplete pages.

I would say we should automate it with a bot that looks at lastest revision time compared to comic release, but I have no idea how hard or plausable that would be Black Hat's Hat (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily have enough contributive footfall to make a meaningful day-on-day votable-upon 'executive' decision over what the next day's (or maybe the next few days', lining them up in advance) AOTD should be. Although maybe I'm wrong (and then maybe we need the Bot to pick up the next-in-line at the turn of the server-day, and implement it, rather than rely upon someone manually doing this... but I can imagine a few ways even this could go wrong).

As to how to 'metricificate' the candidates in a way that a Bot can fully automate the process..? The project towards Completion was comparatively simple (because the Incomplete labels directly gave a methodology for finding suggestions), but the assumption that all the (presumably now not-Incomplete?) comics are assessable is one thing, but I don't see what we can do to best select an idealised AOTD from that, that isn't just a virtual copy of the (now fixed?) Random Comic link.

If we're looking for ones in the bottom-most fraction of the list, when sorted low to high by last edit-date, this could equally be because they're clearly now exemplary (despite all the visitors, nobody has found anything wrong with it, recently) or we're sending new users onto potentially the worst articles (because they desperately need looking at, just to make sure they're not link-rotted/whatever).

And either of these (contradictory!) aims can be utterly subverted by someone going in and deliberately doing any trivial edit at all (good, bad or ugly; and that edit then potentially reverted again by someone else to make it worse/better/just-as-it-was again, but still leaving its timestamp reset), immediately taking it out of contention (for whatever quality-contest it was supposed to be in) for the foreseeable future until it becomes unchanged for longer than most of the other (similarly poked and prodded) articles.

At this point, we're back to the recent idea of looking for good/bad edits by just counting the words (or was it characters?) in the latest version, and suggesting some arbitrary ideal value is our target, and everything else must need changing towards that target, regardless of the fact that some comics are far more complex/simple to explain than others. It's then a short step from there to just selecting the 'ideal' AOTD based upon choosing randomly from a sublist created by splitting off the ones with odd or even numbers of words in them. Just as meaningful, in the long-run, IMO.

Ok, so maybe I'm being a bit pessimistic, and there's an (AGI-led?) superior and yet mostly hands-off method of selecting the best candidates, but I can't see it myself. 92.23.0.28 02:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Or, we can just look at the list of shortest explanations (Special:ShortPages) and decide if they're short because the joke is simple or because the joke can be explained better. We make a list and every week update the sitenotice. FaviFake (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about the intent of this, and therefore the necessary solution, though. Are we:

• Choosing from the "simple to explain" cut of shortest explanations, to show off "explainxkcd at its best" to new readers, or
• Choosing from the "it can be explained better" cut of shortest explanations, to get people (old hands, mainly?) to actually explain them better?

The first is what the original Article Of The Day(/Week) suggestion seemed to want to happen (before it was restyled as "This Week's Explanation for Improvement", that is), the latter is essentially in a similar vein to the Explanation Completion Project.

I'm relatively happy for either of these to happen (with the caveats of actually getting the select-and-split working)...

Or, perhaps... both? Put a great big flashing sign sending people to the Exemplars on the Main Page (however that can be done, without badly clashing with the LATESTCOMIC section, and essentially resurrecting the global(ish) Explanation Completion Project header-announcement. 92.23.0.28 20:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I admit I must've misread the original proposal, but I agree they would both be welcome. The project I'm currently trying to create is the second you mentioned, to get editors (and hopefully newcomers as well?) to help us with bad explanations. I've explained the goal of the project, as I see it, at explain xkcd:Explanation Improvement Project, feel free to give the manifesto a read!

In the future we should definitely also create a process similar to Wikipedia's today's featured article nominations, which just highlights a really good article on the main page for a set period of time, but for now I think we can focus on This Week's Explanation for Improvement. FaviFake (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I do admit my original idea was a lot simpler, but it quickly evolved into something much better. The glories of open source thinking never cease to amaze. I like this current iteration much more. Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Human-led complication of needed articles with a Bot that automatically updates it every week would work best. Perhaps a list that a couple people manage on a sub-page or in Coordination or somewhere, a place to put suggestions for the list, and then a Bot that pulls the top of the list out and puts in on AotW. Daily would be probably too difficult to maintain regularly, so weekly is a much better option for this now that I've thought about it

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ idk tho Black Hat's Hat (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you get a bot to run articles through something like this and flag up ones that score worst? 82.13.184.33 08:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be hard to code a bot to decide which articles are the "worst" and would be much slower than a human looking through the articles. tori :3^{talk to me!} 15:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Doh! I forgot to actually include the link I was referring to. Trying to include it here, but I keep getting a box that just says "CAPTCHA:", with no indication of what I'm supposed to put in it...82.13.184.33 15:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Wonder if I can do it in the other edit mode: Yep - that works - something like this 82.13.184.33 15:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That wouldn't work. There are other criteria besides shortness and readability and we don't need an automated system just to pick one page every week if that would make the proposed TWEFI worse. FaviFake (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could have 'queue' system, where we manually add articles that need improvement to a list. The first article in the list becomes the contents of TWEFI and is deleted from the list. If the article hasn't been sufficiently updated within the week, it returns to the end of the queue. Either way, others are moved up and a new article is chosen. Repeat this process until there are no explanations left to improve. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That should be pretty easy to automate (I think). I second this idea Black Hat's Hat (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You're basically describing the current process, except that it's manual. You should check out explain xkcd:Explanation Improvement Project#Nomination process, it's exactly as you describe it, except that we don't recycle an article. Wasting time to create a bot, which none of us can do, will result in 1205.

The problem is that we need people to nominate explanations in the first place so we can put them in a queue! And we need people to comment to decide whether it meets the criteria or not! and where to place them in the queue! I can do the BTS stuff, but I can't carry this project all by myself.

You could do this right now! So in a few days when it launches, people will see that there is an active team working behind the project and we will get more people to nominate more explanations. But we need to get a few comments first! Nobody on this discussion has nominated an article or commented except the hat of Black Hat :(   FaviFake (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh and we also need someone to come up with concrete suggestions for improving the explanation so that we can put them in the {{This Week's Explanation for Improvement banner}} once the nomination is successful. So many possible things to do! FaviFake (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Some more people have nominated, and I commented on a couple!

I'm worried that people won't be able to find this project without some help. Perhaps on pages that have been nominated / accepted, we could put a small noticing saying "This page has been nominated for TWEFI!" or whatnot.

I might try to learn how to code so I can make a bot for some automations (don't count on anything though) or I could probably contact a friend who knows how to code.

For now, I'm staring at the moon. It's a lunar eclipse in my area rn! Space is so cool Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 ✓ Done  I added the site-wide banner, a notice on pages that have either passed or failed a TWEFI nomination, and added it to the main page. The current TWEFI is 395: Morning! FaviFake (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't so much thinking of it being the sole arbiter of what gets picked - more just to run in bulk across all existing articles to identify, say, the twenty 'most unreadable' as prime contenders for consideration for being included (and potentially periodically thereafter, if the list of nominations starts to run short). (I don't know how practical building such a thing would be, though - making bots isn't really in my wheelhouse (is this enough parentheses, by the way? (o: )) 82.13.184.33 08:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'm really starting to like this idea. I've created {{This Week's Explanation for Improvement banner}} and I think we could get started in a few days! We can figure out the best way to nominate explanations for improvement along the way, all that really matters is a cool sitenotice, a template, and a transclusion on the main page. For the first few weeks I can manually pick out a few explanations from Special:ShortPages until we figure out the process. Here's what the template currently looks like:

This comic has been selected as This Week's Explanation for Improvement. Anyone is encouraged to help explain this comic! Every little bit counts; even just adding a sentence or fixing a typo is another step towards improving the wiki for everyone. Suggested improvements:   ERROR: Please add a few suggestions for editing the explanation! Click here to get started! If you are new to wiki editing, see our editing FAQ for guidance, or simply learn by doing!

I'd really like to hear User:42.book.addict and User:DollarStoreBa'al's thoughts about this, as well as the IP's and anyone else's! FaviFake (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to pick a random page from Special:ShortPages? That could work well as an automatic process. I'm a fan of the above template, but maybe we should make it a bit shorter for the main page only so it doesn't take up too much space. Perhaps remove the 'suggested improvements' section for the main page version? The full template could be used on the explanation only. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem with random short pages I have discovered from some time doomscrolling (too much time) through them is there is a large amount of real life people and some very simple comics that probably don't need too much attention. A bot randomly picking Adolf Hitler off that list probably isn't the best idea.^{[citation needed]}

I'd say we (User:FaviFake) just pick some out for now before we get a good system going up. Hopefully the community can contribute good pages to be featured. Black Hat's Hat (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe we have it pick from Incomplete explanations instead? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

That is true. Some explanations should be short and others should be long, it depends often the complexity of the comic.

Incomplete explanations also wouldn't work. They're basically already advertised on every {{incomplete}} notice and the main page subtitle, and bringing more attention to the 50 incomplete explanations remaining wouldn't result in anything because those are usually the hardest ones to do. We need to pick new pages ourselves. FaviFake (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Having DOOMscrolled a tad bit more, I can say for sure that there are definately comics that need some love, but they are quite buried. Some searching should come up with good results though, but I am not a wiki expert and should not be trusted^{[citation needed]}

PS I love embeding [[1]] but I should really stop Black Hat's Hat (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could do something similar to Template:LATESTCOMIC, where we update the template each week with the selected page and have it be transcluded as opposed to the current solution of {{PAGENAME}}. The wikitext could read something like:

The community has selected {{EXPTOIMPROVE}} as This Week's Explanation for Improvement!

Any thoughts? I can also whip up a quick main-page version if wanted/needed. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes! To be clear, the banner above is supposed to be used on the article itself, so {{PAGENAME}} would result in the number+title of the comic. For the global Sitenotice, we would have a much shorter green banner that announces the new project and links to the current explanation inside a couple of <big> tags.

Then, I was thinking we add a new section below the newest explanation on the Main Page that just embeds the full comic (similarly to the current comic, but in a green background instead of blue, to distinguish it), with a brief two-sentence introduction explaining why this comic is on the main page and the project itself. The transclusion below will include the comic image itself and the rest of the page, including the explanation with the full list of suggested edits and the transcript, etc.

The main page for the project, explain xkcd:This Week's Explanation for Improvement, would explain the project in detail and its decade-old history. It will probably also include an archive of previous successful and failed TWEFI nominations. The Sitenotice and the Main Page transclusion would include a template like the one you suggested, such as {{TWEFI}}, which is just the pagename of the current comic. FaviFake (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Should we... should we make these pages? Black Hat's Hat (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm creating them and they'll be ready soon. Y'all should probably focus on drumming up a nice list of good TWEFI candidates from Special:ShortPages, which should be short not because the joke is simple but because the page has been neglected or is extremely outdated. FaviFake (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Aye aye cap'n. Mind ships setting sail on the sea of short pages now 🏴‍☠️ Black Hat's Hat (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I spent most of my stats class making up a list, but forgot it about it once school got out and then had practice. Added about 15 pages. Not sure how exactly nominations should look so I bs'd something that looked official and cool. Feel free to look over and remove some. It's hard to explain how I picked the articles I did. Felt it in ma bones Black Hat's Hat (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

On it! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 19:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Love this! Dunno what else to add, everything looks good so far! If any problems or discrepancies catch my eye, I'll make sure to bring them up. In the meantime, I'll look through our articles and see which pages we can add. tori :3^{talk to me!} 05:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, nice! This definitely looks totally original. Made a first nom. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 21:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

7amithorn Thank you so much! Feel free to also comment on existing nominations so we can kick start the project with the best possible candidates! I don't want to be the only one commenting :(

And yes, I blatantly stole the idea from Wikipedia. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery! FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

So much more polished

@FaviFake I really love what you've done with this, props to you! I'm going to try my best to do my part in my free time and WILL be adding this to my list of pages to regularly patrol C: tori :3^{talk to me!} 05:00, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! @DollarStoreBa'al and @Black Hat's Hat, note that I've moved the discussion from EX:CPP to this page to centralise the discussion.

I've mostly finished the backend stuff now and I've commented on a few of the current nominations. To kick start this pretty big project, it's be nice if we could get as many comments and nominations as possible before the official launch, so people won't be scared to propose an explanation when they'll see the banner. Since {{This Week's Explanation for Improvement banner}} needs a few specific suggestions for each explanation, we can make the process easier by suggesting a few improvements during the nomination before it gets promoted.

I definitely do not want to be (or be seen as) the judge of whether an explanation qualifies or not. Please, please disagree with me! This needs to be a community effort to work and I won't be here forever! We need to attract new people if we want this to work. We dd it with the what if? article index, and we'll do it again!

IP USER, I can't ping you, but be aware that I'd appreciate your comments and nominations as well, since you know the wiki from top to bottom! FaviFake (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there any nickname or identifying factors that they go by? That'll help us tell who we're talking to a lot better, as I often can't really tell other than the distinctive writing style they use. tori :3^{talk to me!} 16:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of them, but one of them is much more active than the other. You can recognise their messages by the huge amount of parentheticals they use. If only there were a way that they could identify themselves in every edit, such as with an account... FaviFake (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, from past experience there's definitely more than one of us that have used a "huge amount of parentheticals", actually. ;) Though (in an Explanation context) I only use them when I think they make more sense than every other method of adding a necessary grammatical aside.

As for your request, I can't speak for others of my ilk, but I'll personally just do what I can, when I can. As always.

Not entirely sure I've got many actual nominations in me, as I'm more likely to fix any obvious problems/lackings I see (if I can (woooh, a parenthetical! - and now a nested parenthetical!!)), but I'll keep it under consideration. You lead, and I may follow if it makes sense to me. 92.23.0.28 19:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure! You can also reply or analyse the existing nominations made by others and compare them to the criteria. Anything is welcome!

Also, FYI, I'll keep pretending there are just two "commenting" IPs in this whole wiki, for simplicity. If I see an IP comment that analyses something in extreme and unnecessary details with a strangely consistent and calm tone, then you're "The IP user". If your comment is more excited or rude or happy or shows any kind of emotion (or contains fewer than 2 parentheticals per paragraph), and it isn't matter-of-factly, then you're "the other IP". To me you're just two people :)

Plus the IPs that comment just 1 or two sentences, but those don't count. FaviFake (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Mostly, I've come to realise, I've just lost much of the will to try to do anything much at all explicitly TWEFI-related, right now. It's making normally serendipitously pleasurable 'work' into a target-driven task, and (with a couple of exceptions) I've found it easier to just sit back and let others chase after such targets, save for some relatively minor tweaking that was just too enticing not to look at and do. Which they are doing, so that's all ok then.

Obviously we're in the white-hot heat of polishing off the edges as the means and purposes of this initiative are being sorted out. And glad to see that you've picked up some additional help from elsewhere in the wikiverse. But I've been deliberately not looking at most Recent Changes - i.e. all the ones regarding this.

And you're perfectly welcome to this method of marking off changes. But the point I was aking that, even at the time of the TWEFI being placed there, the sub-request concerned (as worded) was fulfilled. I didn't point it out earlier because I wasn't trying to be awkward or disruptive to your genuine efforts, and I wasn't sure that I wouldn't be. Having just realised how much I've written, that I've now put between the cot/cob tags (which don't work correctly with inline editing, obviously), and I'm fearful of now being at least as disruptive awkward as I had previously tried to avoid being. Alleged erudition aside, I now feel I must apologise, though I've not the will to cut it all out again (elements of all this were written, but not ultimately posted, in several other possible interventions over the last couple of days).

But, having just purged myself of many of my less salubrious thoughts about all this, I will end on saying that I'll just keep plugging away in my own way. And I don't think you'll find that any more of a problem than I may have been in pre-TWEFI times. Here's hoping so, anyway. 92.23.0.28 00:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you don't have to participate if you don't want it, my comments were just invitations!

It's unfortunate that we disagree on the redirects. I agree that it could all be handled by 1 template, but obviously typing {{TWEFIstate|status=unsuccessful but incomplete}} or a similar template call would take much more time compared to typing just {{ui}}. I'm gonna need to use these status comments many times if this project continues. But I don't want the short version to be the main name of the template, because if someone is looking in the template category, for example, they'd have to open the template just to understand what it is. Regarding {{Ui}}-like redirects, I created them because on every other wiki the first letter is always uppercase and I don't want other potential users to be confused when they see that a template they're trying to use is redlinked. And because redirects are cheap and harmless. FaviFake (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The way you took my half-assed idea and ran so far with it is amazing! The sheer amount of work you've put into this project over the past couple of days is oustading as well. You've done a great job, and definitely be proud of what you've done here.

Perhaps putting an annoucement similar to the site transfer or logo redesign could help attract some people? Just something to let people know whats happening at least Black Hat's Hat (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate that! And yes, I'm planning on adding a global banner to the whole site as soon as the project officially launches, you can see how it will look in the #Implementation section above.

But I'm waiting for more people to comment on the current nominations to truly kick start the project. Nobody would want to contribute if they saw that I'm the only person commenting on the current nominations. So I'd really appreciate if we can get a few more comments on there from other participants! I've just enabled the "Reply" button on explain xkcd:Explanation Improvement Project so now it's even easier to comment! FaviFake (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Dark mode styling

Hey @FaviFake, the new boxes and banners and stuff look great... in light mode. Since they're set to a fixed color, in dark mode, I get this blaringly bright white box (with unreadable text, since it's automatically swapped to a similar white). Is there anything we can do to fix it? 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 17:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks like an issue with {{notice}} in general, which provides for a single background color value (in raw hex format with the # prepended to it inside the template). This isn't ideal, as it prevents us from inserting CSS color variables, which are the way templates can adapt to light/dark mode shifts, e.g. replacing #f8f9fa with var(--background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa). Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @7amithorn! This is being discussed at EX:CPA. FaviFake (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Broken file (File:Symbol star blue unsupport.svg)

It appears that File:Symbol star blue unsupport.svg is broken somewhere in the Template:ui page, as it's redlinked. tori :3^{talk to me!} 00:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, File:Symbol unsupport star green.svg, File:Symbol_unsupport_star_gray.svg, File:Symbol_star3.svg, File:Symbol_star2_-_candidate.svg. Do I have to upload these onto our wiki, or are we taking them from somewhere on enwiki? Before, I would've uploaded it in a heartbeat, but I get that there are far more efficient ways to fix this kind of problem tori :3^{talk to me!} 00:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

We're taking them from Commons, which is also used by enwiki and other wikis. These images become redlinks every once in a while and they usually fix themselves in a few minutes. You can try going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and enable "Purge action". then, on the pages where these redlinks appear, click the asterisks in the tools section and they often fix themselves. FaviFake (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Incorrectly transcluding mainspace categories

Currently, the explanation to be improved is transcluded onto this project page, categories and all. I don't know enough wiki magic to attempt something like importing Template:Suppress categories, but it seems to me that would be much easier (and more helpful) than noincluding the categories on every mainspace explanation. lp0 on fire () 07:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lp0 on fire I fixed it by using {{comic discussion}}<noinclude>, let me know if you find any other errors. FaviFake (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't think it's fixed; still populating categories like earthquakes, timelines, and noinclude. I don't think it's an issue we can fix by editing the wikicode of this page unless we remove the transclusion or figure out how to suppress categories when transcluding. lp0 on fire () 23:11, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lp0 on fire There's a fix underway; we will only transclude the explanation and not the rest of the page, but we need to install a MediaWiki extension first. For now, editing the explanation page itself works! FaviFake (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay (:
Side note, will there be a mobile version eventually? lp0 on fire () 23:58, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully yes but not anytime soon. When we switch to V22 as the default, it will at least make the site a little bit less annoying to use on mobile. FaviFake (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)