Editing explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

<noinclude>{{Community links}}

{|-
|valign="top" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big><b>Proposals</b></big></big>

<i>Place for ideas and suggestions to improve the wiki's design and organization on general issues can be<br>incubated for later submission for consensus discussion. Be sure to check whether your proposal has already been submitted. </i>{{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=<small>(+post)</small>}}
|}</noinclude>

==ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS==
<div class="plainlinks" style="background:#edf6ff; border:1px solid #a7d7f9; margin:1em auto 1em auto; width:100%; font-size: 120%; padding: 0.5ex; text-align: center;">Most of the discussions on this page have been archived. The archive is available at '''[[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals]]'''.</div>

== Re-proposing merging Cueball and Rob ==

Okay, so this was previously [[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob discussed] but I felt that it was worth bringing up again. Really, at this point, there's no logical reason why the two should not be merged, or Megan and Cutie should be un-merged. Rob and Cueball clearly seem to be the same person, at least when cueball appears as a specific character. In the instances where there are multiple Cueballs, we should just refer to them as Man 1, Man 2, and so on. Can we get a vote or something this time? Yes, I understand that Cueball isn't always the same character. But neither is [[Megan]], and yet we always refer to the short black haired girl (formerly [[Cutie]]) as Megan. If that logic applies to her, it applies to Rob. It's pretty clear that Randall intended to name the character Rob, as most named Cueballs are named Rob and not Fred or something.

In short: Please don't bring nostalgia into this, it's really not relevant. Changing Cueball to Rob or Megan back to Cutie (or Cuegirl?) would have symmetry and make sense. {{unsigned ip|Sensorfire}}
:I'm ok with dumping a marginal character page that only served to add confusion to character identification in new comics, but this was a subject of contention before so we probably need to see more of people's thoughts first. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree: let's list the arguments for both sides, ensure that everyone agrees with the objectiveness of that listing, and then vote. If there's support for this plan, and nobody does it first, I'll take a stab at producing a first draft of the summary. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 23:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

:Randall is currently on a booktour. So, how about, instead of us (without the ability to read minds) arguing about his intention or who is/isn't the same character, someone go see him and ask? Then we'll know with absolute 100% certainty. [[User:WaltG123|WaltG123]] ([[User talk:WaltG123|talk]]) 04:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::Randall never called either character Cueball and Cutie so of course this is not his names. Asking him would make no meaning at all. For any user of xkcd it will create lots of confusion to change the names of Megan and Cueball now. Regarding Rob he is already listed as Cueball in his category. And Cueballs have been called other names several times. Rob is just the only one that has been used a few times. I agree that it may have been wrong to call her Megan, (the name has been used like three times?) Similar it is just as wrong to call Black Hat's girlfriend [[Danish]], a nick name used once. But it is actually very nice to have a real name or at least useful name when speaking of characters. And it has also been mentioned that Cutie could be perused as a sexist name, so we should not move back to that. Well recently even [[Hairbun]] has her name changed from Hairbun girl since a user thought that was a problem given it most often was a grown woman.  So I think we should stick to the solution of the previous debate and leave Cueball, Rob and Megan alone as they are! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

== Adjective phrases ==

Overwhelmed with the need to be picayune, I am compelled to point out that on the homepage there is the sentence that begins "There are a lot of comics that don't have set in stone explanations..." This sentence contains a adjective phrase which should be hyphenated thus: "set-in-stone"

Please pretend that I have said something witty here, as I am too tired to think of anything funny. {{unsigned|Gamewriter}}
:Is it actually grammatically wrong in it's current state? Huh. I guess I'll change it. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 20:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

::This is long after the fact, but I'll throw my two cents in on Davidy22's question. Yes, it is wrong. If the 'set in stone' phrase were after the word explanations ("explanations set in stone") it would not require hyphens, but used as an adjective before the noun ("set-in-stone explanations") it requires them. D Miller [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.41|108.162.221.41]] 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

== Update MediaWiki ==

You are currently using MediaWiki 1.19.17. It's ''really'' outdated. Maybe update to 1.26.2, the current recommended stable version? There is an [[mw:Manual:Upgrading|official guide]] for that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.77|141.101.80.77]] 12:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC) (PS my IP address is wrong it's not what you think it is)

== Rename Hair Bun Girl ==

The character [[Hair Bun Girl]] was named in April 2015. There wasn't any discussion of the name at the time, so I'd like to open that discussion now please.

At present we have several other characters named after distinctive visual features: [[Ponytail]], [[Black Hat]], [[White Hat]], [[Beret Guy]], and arguably [[Hairy]] and [[Cueball]]. In all but one of those cases, the name matches the distinctive feature itself, without the addition of "guy", "girl", etc. Given the number of comics that Beret Guy is in it's probably too late to modify his name, but it's not too late for Hair Bun Girl.

Besides the consistency issue, there's also the inaccuracy of referring to a grown woman with the term "girl", particularly when the character has been presented as older than [[Megan]]. I'd really like to fix this while her number of appearances is still manageable.

The name "Hairbun" has been proposed and I think that matches really nicely with Ponytail in particular.

[[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:As the "guy" who created the Hair Bun Girl characther, I have no objection to changing the name. I did not think about the issue with girl/woman, probably because I'm not native English speaker. (And with the Beret Guy as an example). Jkshapiro was so kind as to [[User_talk:Kynde#Hair_Bun_.22Girl.22|ask my opinion]] before starting this discussion. At first I thought that ''Hairbun'' was a little weird, but then again so is Ponytail in this context. So I '''support''' the change to '''Hairbun'''! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''change''' Hair Bun to Hairbun and '''keep''' girl. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm going ahead. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 02:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:Well as I said I would not mind, but you cannot say you got any other to agree with you on this though. Mimek wished to keep girl... It will be a huge job to get all the instances correct, also be careful no to change those places where the talk is of a girl who has a hair bun. You cannot just change all placed with hair bun girl to Hairbun, in case is actually says the hair bun girl about a small girl who has a hair bun!  --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::Seems no one cares, so I will remove the notes now. Great job Jkshapiro with changing the names. I like the new name now :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

== Mobile friendly website ==

Can we get a mobile friendly version of the wiki?  If we already have one, what about forwarding the main site to it when viewed on a phone? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. And/or an app. I would like to be able to keep track of which comics/explanations I have read. [[User:Calion|Calion]] ([[User talk:Calion|talk]]) 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Install [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend the MobileFrontend-extension] on the wiki. Or is it more complicated than that? [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:Dgbrt Dgbrt] mentions "working on a real mobile version" below, under [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Tables_vs_bold_text Tables vs bold text] [[User:Coverbe|Coverbe]] ([[User talk:Coverbe|talk]]) 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

== New categories ==

I think there may be a need to propose a standard way to decide on categories: what new ones are needed, what are the prerequisites for creating a new category, how to maintain new categories and make sure they are actually used when they apply etc. For now I have gathered all previous discussions about new categories under this section. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 13:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:I think that whenever there are more than 4-5 comics that you wish to refer to in a given explanation because they are of the same topic as the current comic, then having a category is much to prefer rather than listing 5, 6 or 7 comics. I have made several categories for these instances, for instance for sport including the most used sports. At the time being I keep them up to date. One of the things this site does so well is giving you an easy way to find a specific comic even though you cannot remember the title of any precise quotes etc. If you just have an idea of what the topic was you might find it based on the categories. In this way I do not think we can have too many categories. As long as they describe a recurring subject. Only fault is that there seems to be no way to search for a comic based on more than one category? That would be great. In some cases even only 3 comics in a category can make sense. For instance I would be sorry to see this one go [[:Category:Puts on sunglasses]] (and I did not make it!) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::For instance I have long wished for categories that covered all the space probe related comics, particularly all those referencing the Mars rovers. So today I made them with 16 and 9 comics in them already. [[:Category:Space probes]] [[:Category:Mars rovers]]. I hope people will generally think this was a great idea! :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::And [[:Category:The Lion King]]... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of category creation proposals scattered everywhere. This concentrated proposal list is really hard to find. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

=== Category: Protip ===

Anyone for adding ''Protip'' as a [[:Category:Comic series|Comic series]]. I have found five so far: [[653]], [[711]], [[1022]], [[1047]] and [[1156]]. (There are also a few comics with a protip title text.) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:I think that qualifies as a recurring topic (thus worthy of a category), but not as a series, where you can see a clear sequence. In fact, [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] has the same limitation, for what I suggest it to be removed from [[:Category:Comic series]]. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Seconded. Looks general and common enough to be a category. '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Okay, great! Do you think that the ones with a "protip:" title text should be included? Besides, I think I might be the one responsiple for moving My Hobby from [[:Category:Comics by topic|Comics by topic]] to Comic series. I felt that all the My Hobby comics were about different topics, but maybe i've got to narrow an interpretation of the word "topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::: Can you link to the protip-in-title-text comics?
:::: As for My Hobby, note that categories aren't mutually exclusive. They can be in the "my hobby" topic, and each of them further categorized as appropriate: music, math, etc. Makes sense? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: I just searched for protip in the xkcd search bar. Here: [[1084]], [[427]]. And yes, makes sense. I've moved My Hobby back to "by topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: Sports ===

How about creating a new "Sports" category?  [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 15:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:Well, maybe. Everyone aren't so keen on new categories here. Which comics are you thinking of, for a start? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
::We definitely need to reach an agreement as a community on when to create new categories. Something simple like a minimum of 3 (or, say, 5) existing comics. Since we're already at the proposals' portal... what do you guys think about that? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:::My opinion:  Five would be enough to qualify.  [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I vote for four. But it should also be a reasonable thing to categorize, like sports, not like "sports with Cueball containing at least three anagram words". Wich sholdn't be a problem. :) But the best name choice could be tricky sometimes. e.g. "Film & television", Film & TV", "Film", "Films", or "Movies"? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::
::::Agreed, five should be enough to create the category without having to discuss it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
: OK, let's start with [[588: Pep Rally|588]], [[1092: Michael Phelps|1092]], [[904: Sports|904]] and [[1107: Sports Cheat Sheet|1107]].  Should be able to find a few more.  [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 05:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's a broad subject so there are probably several more.  -[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I found another one, sort of, in [[929]] (although it hasn't been explained yet).  Should I get the ball rolling (no pun intended) on setting up the category?  Don't wanna do it unilaterally and get yelled at.  ;)  [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 06:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I think you should. On a wiki, getting stuck in discussions which die without a conclusion, to the point that motivated people give up without having done anything, is definitely counter-productive, and phrases like [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|Wikipedia:Be bold]] are here to remind us of that. Seems like people agreed that you ''could'', and after a while nobody said that you ''shouldn't'', so I'd say do it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:I did it without looking here first, because it was obvious there were many [[:Category:Sport|sport comics]]. I have even created four under categories (only one was there before, Chess). There are 10 comics at present that are related to other sports than the five under categories. And given the way Randall thinks about sport (not very much) he still has plenty of comics about the subject. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

=== Category: Sex ===

I think we should also create a Sex category.  There's no ''doubt'' we can find more than three examples.  I'll start looking for them and post the ones I find in here; again, I don't wanna create a large category by myself without community consent.  [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
*OK, the ones for Category: Sex that I've found so far are [[443]], [[219]], [[550]], [[1026]], [[575]], [[468]], [[592]], [[320]], [[1101]], [[417]], [[713]], [[672]], [[230]], [[436]], [[940]], [[532]], [[649]], [[176]], [[1006]], [[596]] and [[717]], and I'm sure there are many more.  Should we create this category?  [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

:Same as [[#Category: Sports|above]], do it. Oh, already did; well, all the better. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: Flowcharts ===

Hello, the line "Randall has made use of flowcharts before." in today's comic explanation made me want a [[:Category:Flowcharts|flowcharts category]] to navigate into...

As it didn't exist, I proceeded to create it, but as the log says, [[User:lcarsos|lcarsos]] deleted such a category in November, saying ''"Insufficient differentiation from Category:Comics with charts, diluting the depth of comics tagged charts"''.

I don't agree with that, and I think we could profit from such a subcategory. I found those pages fitting it:
* [[94: Profile Creation Flowchart]]
* [[210: 90's Flowchart]]
* [[488: Steal This Comic]]
* [[627: Tech Support Cheat Sheet]]
* [[844: Good Code]]
* [[851: Na]]
* [[854: Learning to Cook]]
* [[1195: Flowchart]]

So? - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:Weell if you're willing to take charge of the category and personally make sure it's added to all relevant comic explanations, go ahead. The usual objection to making new categories is that we admins can't remember all the categories when we're reviewing new explanations, but it's K if you're willing to take up that responsibility yourself. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:
:: OK. I did it without waiting for further replies, because I think it will be especially profitable today (to viewers).
:: It doesn't seem a big issue to me if the correct category is not added when a new explanation is made: a passing editor will do it later on... But hey, I'm OK with taking special care of adding pages to this category.
:: [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 12:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

::: I just want to add that Cos' view is indeed the appropriate way to work in wikis: there is no concept of a single author for a page, category, or piece of text, and the workload is meant to be distributed among several editors: it is not necessary that any single editor remembers all existing categories, or knows the wiki markup by heart, or knows how to work with all the features of mediawiki, etc. The reason why wikis can be edited by anyone is precisely a recognition that there *will* be errors and any page can be improved somehow. That reasoning against categories should, IMO, be abandoned, or at most only kept as the opinion of some editors. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Isnt there a page which lists all the categories? If not, there should be one, and it should be accessible to all. Such a page could be useful when trying to quick-add categories to comics. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.83.155|117.194.83.155]] 13:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, there is. [[Special:Categories]]. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Of course, there's a gazillion of 'em, over several pages, so I understand any reluctance to add new categories (having just suggested a new one myself which I feel is justified, but knowing that the upkeep needed may be the key point of contention so remaining philosophical about it).
::A solution perhaps to carry over from another locale that I frequent is to have a "Categories of Character" page, a "Categories of Object" one, perhaps "Categories of Event", and a "Categories of Publication".  For each new comic someone can easily check the shorter Character categories list against those present, the Object list against itemsin use, Events, etc, and of course the Publication one has the "Tuesday Comic"/equivalent, and other date-based ones (although isn't that automatic from templated creation?  ...never added a comic, but would imagine it is).  After that it's a trawl through the miscelania categories (perhaps a meta-category just for them?).  But, yeah, a lot of work to set up.  Wouldn't wish it on anyone who wasn't already willing to do it, and I remain an anon-IP person right now so can hardly commit ''myself'' as volunteer maintainer of this. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: (Barred/banned from?) Conferences ===

I come here after realising I erroneously posted (in reply) to the Main page Talk, being anonymous (or at least IP-only) and without a list of qualifying articles to support me, just yet, but still wish to put forward the above category before I forget.  There's no apparent equivalent, that I found, but it's definitely a recurring meme.  I should be back (named or otherwise) with my suggested list of members, if someone else doesn't get there first, but I thought I'd start with the placemarker. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
:Ok, so I got the bee in my bonnet and spent a few minutes actually looking into this.  Revising "Barred from Conferences" (actually more often "Banned" or even "Thrown out of"/equivalent) to just "Conferences", the subset of comics that I can easily find that are involved is *[[153]], *[[177]], *[[365]], *[[410]], *[[463]], *[[541]], [[545]], [[685]], [[829]] and [[867]], but I'm sure there are more recent ones that I didn't spot/recall.  One alternative title to "Conferences" is "Presentations", and I'm sure if I'd searched for that I'd have found more potential candidates (less some that might ''exit'' the renamed category).  The asterisked ones ''do'' deal with being barred/banned/thrown out/etc, making it still a suitable category in its own right, IMO, but I'll leave it up to your combined musings to decide. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
::I add [[690]] to the list. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

::: Great suggestions! I created [[:Category:Public speaking]] and [[:Category:Banned from conferences]]. I also added [[Wikipedian Protester]] to the mix, of course :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: Wishes ===

[http://explainxkcd.com/1391/ Several] [http://explainxkcd.com/1086/ comics] [http://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/152:_Hamster_Ball now] [http://xkcd.com/879/ exist] that talk about wishes - probably more. Should there be a category for this? [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:Doesn't seem significant enough. If you promise to maintain the category you can make it yourself, although it will be cleared out if it gets neglected as new comics are released. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

=== Category: Artificial Intelligence ===

Hello world.

There are a handful of comics involving Ai - [[1540]], [[1530]], [[1450]] and [[948]] for instance - and maybe it's an idea to give them their own category {{unsigned|Nk22}}

:The usual objection to new categories is that they get abandoned and are too narrow for other people to think of picking them up. If you're going to own it and update it with new comics, you can make it. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 21:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

=== Category: Size Comparisons ===
There are numerous comics comparing sizes of things.  I can't get a list right now, but off the top of my head, radiation dosages, money, today's comic, and space shuttles in horses. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 19:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

=== New character category for blonde woman news reporter (from 1699) ===

From today's comic [[1699: Local News]] I just got the idea that there may be needing a new category for either blonde woman and/or comics with news reports. I posted this [[Talk:1699:_Local_News#New_character_category|post]], in the talk page of that comic. Any comments, and if agreeing that there might be one or two different character categories needed then please suggest what they should be called. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
:Agree with Blondie as new character name and with adding a category for news reports. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:Agree with new character category for Blondie --[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 12:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the replies. Could be nice with a few more chipping in. One issue I just found is  [[Miss Lenhart]] and ambiguous situations like in comic [[59: Graduation]], where I would remove the miss reference. But then miss would be a sub category of Blondie (or Blonde? which Randall cals the girl in 59) as [[Rob]] is for [[Cueball]]... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:: I think blondie is fine for a name. Miss Lenhart is another character who uses a similar design so I think treating her like Rob is perfectly acceptable. The only thing more I think we should discuss is the role blondie plays in most of the comics (Like how cueball is an everyman, whitehat is often a strawman, Blackhat is blackhat etc.) [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 12:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
:::There are also these two that looks like Blondie:  [[Mrs. Roberts]] or her daughter [[Elaine Roberts]]. I think this is part of why no one has made the category, as there are already three named women with the same hair. But there are so many other comics with this kind of woman, that I think she should be created. I hope I will get the time, but if anyone has any other ideas than just calling them "Blondie" and letting the other three be an subcategory like Rob is of Cueball then say so now before anyone creates Blondie. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Agree with new character category and characters with the same appearance as sub-categories [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 18:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the discussion she is now called [[Blondie]] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
<br>And now there is also a [[:Category:News anchor]] with 15 entries already. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

=== Business Plan category ===

I propose renaming [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business]] into Business Plans, and adding it to [[1721: Business Idea]] [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 08:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
::(Note I added a ":" to your category link to show the link instead of adding this page to the category. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)) 
:No of course not, that comic is about [[Cueball]]. This is Beret Guy's business we are talking about here. This category is not about business idea but about what [[Beret Guy]] does just like the page with [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]. Both are used in the explanation of who he is. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

=== Category for The Little Prince? ===

How many comics need to feature/mention a certain thing before we need a category? I think there are enough featuring the Little Prince to deserve a Category of its own. {{unsigned|AmbroseChapel|06:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)}}

===Category: Katamari Damacy ===

There are quite a few comics about this game. [[User:DPS2004|DPS2004]] ([[User talk:DPS2004|talk]])

=== "Multiple Megan-like characters" category ===

Since there are more than one Megan-like characters appear in the same panel of at least seven comics, I propose to create the "Multiple Megan-like characters" category.  --[[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] ([[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]) 07:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

=== Category: Mycology ===

6 comics so far reference mycology/mushrooms. I might be a bit biased, but there's other categories like butterfly nets that have the same amount of comics. Also, destroying angels are a huge part of the What-If chapter (book-exclusive) about losing your DNA. It should probably be a subcategory under Biology.

Here is the list (what I found so far at least):

[[2307]] - fungi on the chart

[[2246]] - fungi in the title text

[[1991]] - mycology is a subject on the chart

[[1904]] - see above

[[1749]] - comic is about mushrooms

[[1664]] - comic is about mycology  [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 07:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
:Eh sure if you're keen enough on it '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Discord category ===
Do we need categories for comics that mention various popular social media clients, such as Google and Discord? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.98|172.69.134.98]] 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
:If there are a group of them, then list them, then they can be added. I can think of a couple of Google-related ones (well, Google search-page, not whatever Alphabet is currently doing insofar as social media), but don't have their names/numbers in my head right now. Do the search and list them here for someone to catalogue up?
:I'm not sure there are specific Discord mentions. Noting that just because some unidentified headshot dialogue/notification looks Discordish, it doesn't make it a mention. Too much cross-pollination of appearance. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.252|172.70.90.252]] 09:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

=== Category: Versions ===

I've noticed that a recurring subject in xkcd is comics which list versions of a real thing, only some of which are real. Closer to the end of the list, the versions get more and more crazy.

Here are some examples I've found:
* [[2719: Hydrogen Isotopes]]
* [[2172: Lunar Cycles]]
* [[2860: Decay Modes]]
* [[2369: All-in-One]]
* [[2924: Pendulum Types]]
* [[2614: 2]]
* [[2816: Types of Solar Eclipse]]

Let me know if you have any objections or suggestions for this category. Thanks! [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Another example: [[2848: Breaker Box]]

=== Category: Ghosts ===

I've also noticed several comics featuring ghosts, but not Ghostbusters. These could become a category, and maybe Ghostbusters could become a sub-category of it.

Here are some examples:
* [[1108: Cautionary Ghost]]
* [[2836: A Halloween Carol]]
* [[1393: Timeghost]]

Let me know if you have any objections or suggestions for this category. Thanks! [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

::Nice proposal. I'd proposed a category "infernal" for all things demonic and hell-related (some demon strips are not in hell; some hell strips do not have demons). There is already a "religion" category. Could we maybe shift them all to a "supernatural/mythological" category and then allow for subcategories? {{unsigned ip|172.71.90.85|21:12, 5 November 2024}}

::Great suggestion! Perhaps "Infernal" could be a subcategory of both "Supernatural/Mythological" and "Religion"? [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hang on, it seems that someone else has already created [[:Category:Ghosts]]. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Category: Comics with Hidden Images ===

There are a couple of comics I've read that have hidden images in them. They are [[1000: 1000 Comics]] and [[1213: Combination Vision Test]]. This might seem small, but I think it should be a category. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 20:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Category: Crystal spheres ===

Three comics that I have read ([[2121: Light Pollution]], [[2765: Escape Speed]], and [[1189: Voyager 1]]) mention or include crystal spheres. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 16:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

=== "I Got Fired From"-type category ===
I think that to improve this website, you should add a category that contains only the i got fired from the <x> because i did <y>.

does this exist already or did someone already propose this idea? Im pretty new to this website, so can someone pls tell me?

thank you {{unsigned|I HAVE NO NAME2|07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)}}
:It has been suggested, but doesn't hurt to propose it (properly!) somewhere like here. It helps if you state the candidate articles for which it would initially be used. (I'm aware of two, but having a third or more would be useful - very easily to draw an arbitrary line through any two points, without there being any actual real trend between those points or any other points to match that line.)
:And welcome. You're new and have been adding minor comments to many article Talk pages, I notice (as well as other edits). Do note that it really doesn't need you to 'tag' every page you read, but it looks like your heart is in the right place and so if you perhaps ease yourself more into the wiki I'm sure you'll make further valuable contributions. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.35|172.70.90.35]] 10:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:(Addendum - did not realise you were using [[User:I HAVE NO NAME2]], not [[User:I HAVE NO NAME]] just now when I corrected your contribution. If you're the same person, then my comments stand but you are going to create confusion. But still all the best to you. If you're ''not'' the same person, the general sentiment still applies.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 10:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

=== News Category ===

I propose that we add a News category, as proposed by user Ok123. There’s a news anchor category, but we can put news anchor under this category and include comics about newspapers, such as [[750: Book Burning]] and [[1062: Budget News]] [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

=== Category: Thought Experiments ===

I'd like a category for CLASSICAL thought experiments, including {{w|Schrödinger's cat}}, {{w|Maxwell's Demon}}, and the {{w|Trolley Problem}}. A good list of examples is available halfway down the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment#Examples . I'm highlighting "classical" because enough of the XKCD strips could constitute original thought experiments in their own right. I'll start searching now and will post a list of a few qualifying comics shortly. Sorry about the IP address. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.68|172.71.103.68]] 18:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:[[45]], [[1016]], [[857]], [[384]], [[1233]], [[1465]]. [[1925]], [[1938]], [[3006]]... (Just based on a quick search. There are loads more. Bonus points for the term "Gedankedank"). {{unsigned ip|172.71.98.42|18:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)}}

== Adding Ratings for Explanations ==

I found [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1652 today's explanation] excellently written however that is not always the case.   Frequently explanations are walk through of the conversation that are too wordy without any succinct explanation of why or how a strip is funny -- while many of those low quality explanations are not strictly "incomplete" they could benefit from a careful rewrite.   I was wondering if we should add a rating tool such as " ''Was this explanation helpful? yes/no'' " so as to identify explanation that could benefit from improvement without having to be tagged as "incomplete". [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 17:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
:We have a rather prominent discussion page for feedback, do we really need an additional add-on for this? I did a little research and found that other wikis use [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating semantic rating] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticleRatings article ratings], which I can install if enough other users want it. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

== New Speculation Sections ==

I often see a lot of speculation and conjecture within the explanation of the comic itself. I don't think it has any place in the explanation but I know many editors enjoy speculating and interpreting the comic and the meaning behind it so I've decided to start this discussion on whether we should provide a section where we can provide different speculations.

What I am thinking would not be like the discussion page, where comments are made and discussed, but an edited and reviewed section which outlines different speculations and interpretations of the comics themselves and perhaps even the author's intent.

Of course tone and presentation should be held to the same standards of the comic explanation but I think this would be a good way to better organize a review of the comic.

I have been away too long to remember if there are any comic explanations with something like this so I have no idea how well it would work.

As an example;

This part from comic 1642: [[Gravitational Waves]]

" It seems that Randall knew in advance about this announcement because this comic was published on a Thursday, not following the normal publish schedule, to coincide with the announcement "

Is well supported, and rather likely correct, conjecture which belongs in the body of the explanation because not only is it backed by strong evidence but it provides background on the comic and the time in which the comic was released and aids in understanding the comic itself.

However, this part from comic 478: [[The Staple Madness]]

"From just reading the comic by itself, one may presume that in the last panel, Cueball has been stapled to the ceiling (as obvious evidence to Megan that Beret Guy has indeed been abusing her staple gun). According to the comic's official transcript, however, it is in fact God who is speaking."

Is almost as equally well supported and certainly a valid interpretation of simply the comic. It is only refuted by the official transcript. I believe it is important to acknowledge and may even be a more humorous interpretation than the one which is provided by the official transcript.

If we added a speculation section (or something of the sort) then we would have a place to talk about this interpretation more freely and expound upon it more.

[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 15:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
: Problem is the whole "explanation" is actually conjecture. None of us the author, we're all just guessing. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

: Many of the current explanations are conjecture, that's true but not every explanation. Providing information on the science or mathematics behind a particular comic is not conjecture. Stating whether the author intended to belittle the field or state that one field is superior over another (unless fairly explicitly stated) is. And there are many things which can be inferred without being simple speculation. Not every comic would need a section like this, and not every comic needs a trivia section, and I'm not ready to start adding this proposed section myself. But I think it should be considered. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
::The intention of the discussion pages was to serve as a place for people to put their conjecture and reaching interpretations of the comics. They're presented alongside the explanation to make people's interpretations more readily visible. Some people may have trouble distinguishing an ungrounded interpretation of a comic from an explanation of it, and they will insert weak text into explanations. If you find something you disagree with, feel free to bring it up in the discussion section and edit it out of the explanation liberally '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

== Unixkcd ==

Hello everyone. I was just wondering: is there anything on http://uni.xkcd.com/. Because I was just looking and the only thing I found on Unixkcd is a mention of a bug in [[1350]]. There is not even a mention on the April fools article.
:There's nothing on this site, there's a couple of novel tidbits on the xkcd site that are at best tangentially related to the comic, as Randall originally intended to make xkcd.com his personal site for hosting his own projects. That particular one doesn't show up in any comics. Also, proposals might not be the best place to put this. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
::I added the unixckd information to [[721: Flatland]]. According to [https://vimeo.com/78912850 Randalls Øredev 2013 talk] unixkcd was the April Fools' prank for April 1st 2010. [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 09:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

== fix a page ==

The page Comics featuring Summer Glau is missing:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/526:_Converting_to_Metric {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.130}}
:Done. In the future, you can add categories yourself, just scroll to the bottom and follow the template the others go by. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 03:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

== New xkcd book out. ==

Any chance of posting a section of explanation pages for the cartoons in the new xkcd book, hopefully explaining some of the cryptic red notes? Thanks! {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.102}}

== Comics with header text ==

Several comic have some header text, such as [[851]] or [[1052]]. Shouldn't there be a category for them or something? I think it is quite a notable feature. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 15:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:I feel like it's not a particularly defining feature, it feels like making a category for comics that have frames with no borders or something, it's just a technique Randall uses. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
::To me it feels more like a second title text. It is not technically part of the comic itself, but is a separate piece of information included with it on the xkcd website. There is a category for comics without title text, this is the same, only reverse, in my humble opinion [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 07:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

== purpose of detailed transcripts ==

There are two styles of comic descriptions in the transcripts. Some
are fairly terse, giving only the information required to understand
the comic (e.g. "Cueball is talking to Megan, who looks excited").
Others give lots of graphic details, as if one should be able to
reconstruct the picture from the description (e.g. "Cueball, on the
left, is talking to Megan, on the right. His left hand is pointing to
her. Megan's arms are raised above her head and her excitement is
shown by short lines around her head..." and so on). The former style
used to be the norm, the latter has become increasingly
common in recent months.

Being visually impaired, I am extremely pleased with the terse style
of transcript, and have no interest in the verbose style. To me it is
useless and sometimes fairly annoying. Of course, this is a community
and I can happily live with it if others find it useful.

So, I'd like to know who needs detailed, graphical transcripts, and
for what purpose? Were they requested by some users, or did those
writing transcripts just decide to adopt this new style? If there is
a clearly identified reason for describing pictures in detail, fine.
If not, I vote for switching back to the old, terse style.

Zetfr 14:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

:Sorry we did not see this at the time. As we can see you finally found ears for you comment after [[1798]] and a new discussion has begun on  [[User_talk:Kynde#Transcript_TLDR.3B|my user page]]. (Should probably have been here?) But anyway I'm responsible for your problems, and I will try to write less in the transcript and add "other important" either below in the trivia or below the main comic (as maybe - Detailed image description...) It was meant as a way to search for any thing in the comic if you needed it. I guess most people do not read the transcript, so of course annoying if it is not useful for those who always need to read it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

== Rename Science Girl "Jill" ==

Following the Precedent of "[[Megan]]" and "[[Danish]]" (but oddly enough not [[Rob]]), I propose that we rename [[Science Girl]] Jill, as per [[1662]]. This could serve to give her an easier name and to use in cases where the character doesn't have a connection with science but seems to be the same girl. [[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 18:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:The only time she's called Jill is in Jack and Jill comics (of course), and the only reason you'd want to do that is since [[Randall]] displays them similarly. In some cases Science Girl is even clearly older. We might do that if there was a [[Child-Blackhaired-Ponytail]] character, but these characters are always either Science Girl or Jill. Also, Jill has very, very few appearances anyway. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 21:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

== Make an official transcript site ==
I've already taken the liberty of making {{template|transcript}}, and think we, together, can do better- which is why I'm implementing [https://jackm.000webhost.com/transcript.html this site], in order to display the official transcript in its intended format. However, it is bugged, and could do better if moved to explain xkcd. Is anyone in on this? [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 21:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
:The transcript site doesn't seem to be accessible. Is the project dead? If it's not I can try to help. [[User:Errpell|Errpell]] ([[User talk:Errpell|talk]]) 21:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

== HTTPS Links Back to XKCD Interfere with Random Button ==

The Links back to the comics that are present just above the comic itself on the wiki pages (and adjacent to the next and previous links) provides an HTTPS link back to XKCD. However, this interferes with users who want to click that link, and then click `random` - because `c.xkcd.com` does NOT support HTTPS, and thus clicking 'random' after returning to xkcd from explainxkcd does not work. These links should be switched back to HTTP.

--[[User:9000 volts|9000 volts]] ([[User talk:9000 volts|talk]]) 21:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

== Rearrange for our visually impaired friends. ==

I have a great friend who is blind and he uses this site to "read" XKCD so we can talk about it.  However, there are two things that he finds frustrating.  The first, while it means no harm and most readers gloss over it, when listening to the content of the page every day it can become demeaning to hear "it's because you're dumb" every time.  I certainly agree, I use explain XKCD because I am significantly dumb-er than Randall, but my friend uses it because he's blind.  This is not that big of a deal, but a friendly suggestion.

The second suggestion is to move the transcript section to the top before the explanation so as not to spoil the content of the comic with user explanation right away--in the case that those listening to the article are in fact smart enough to get the joke before needing an explanation.

Thanks for your consideration.

== Incomplete in spotlight ==

The incomplete comic in spotlight should be changed more often, the current one is not even incomplete. [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 16:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

== Duplicate Navigation tools at bottom of page (please!) ==

I'm enjoying revisiting xkcd canon through the lens of Explain, but frustrated that after studiously reading through the explanation and discussion, I have to scroll back up to the top to get to the Next button.
What would the harm be in duplicating the buttons at the foot of each page? 
Thanks for considering this.
Regards

That would be nice, would help a lot. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes. [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 19:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I really would like this. And it seems simple enough to add, without seriously degrading the existing interface. 
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.230|162.158.154.230]] 05:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Murray/NJ

:{{Done|Done!!!}} &nbsp;It was defintely not simple, at least for me, but I managed to do it. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)


== JSON endpoint ==
There is a [http://www.xkcd.com/info.0.json endpoint] to retrieve information about the comics on the xkcd website. However the info there is not complete, specially when it comes to the transcripts. explainxkcd should provide a similar interface. It would be very useful specially for bots/scripts. The commmunity could help completing the information on the xkcd website and/or provide a new interface. The transcript are already retrieved from this website and a copy can be found [https://github.com/nhatzHK/randi/blob/master/json/xkcd.references.json here]. If there isn't already a complete file or databse with all the information, this file could help building it. However, this document has been compiled by scraping the html of explainxkcd, so there's some errors in it. These errors can be avoid with a clear and easy to access interface like JSON, similar to what is available on the xkcd website. [[User:Errpell|Errpell]] ([[User talk:Errpell|talk]]) 20:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
:Maybe there is a mediawiki addon to support a JSON file. Any ideas? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

== Suggestion for small improvement to interface ==
Am I the only one that wishes the Previous / Next buttons were repeated at the bottom of the page?  After reading the explanation, I often want to go to the next one in sequence.
(Obviously, I don't check this wiki every day :)
Scrolling back to the top isn't hard, but having the buttons near the bottom would make navigation easier.

Hope you agree!
Murray in NJ

PS: Aha! I see others have suggested the same thing :) {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.232}}
:This was also mentioned before. I don't agree because the layout is based on the original xkcd site. '''Protip''': Do not "scroll back", just use your keyboard. The magic key is called "Home". --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

:::{{Done|Done!!!}} &nbsp;It was defintely not simple, at least for me, but I managed to do it. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

== mediawiki things ==

could admin please update to the latest version of mediawiki and add the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless?useskin=timeless timeless skin], thx. also would help if you added <code>line-height: 1.5em</code> to the edit box (<code>#wpTextbox1</code>) while making it taller to compensate, or added the 2010 code editor to aid readability. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.4|162.158.92.4]] 11:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

== The state of "incomplete" explanations and an unified policy ==

Hello, everybody. Recently I went through the "incomplete" explanations and I saw several problems... I think I better split this into sections.

'''1) Many seemingly old and complete explanations are marked either with various creative variations of the auto-generated tag or something along the lines of "rough draft".''' I have personally removed several incomplete tags during the last days, sometimes adding few information before doing so, but usually not. But there are so many of them and it just would not feel right to take it upon myself to reap them all, so, if anyone can spare a few minutes to quickly scan them and remove (or update, in some cases) the tags, it would be nice. Here is a list of explanations with this particular problem, for convenience: [[1874]], [[1906]], [[1908]], [[1912]], [[1915]], [[1919]], [[1925]], [[1926]], [[1929]], [[1930]], [[1937]]

1940 and 1941 also seem complete IMO, but given how recent they are, they could be given some time.

'''2) Some incomplete tags seem like abuse of the feature.''' [[1909]] is probably the best example of this. Table might be nice, but it is not necessary to explain the comic, it would be just "gilding". There is nothing wrong about perfecting complete articles, but marking an article incomplete because someone got an idea how it could be done (and is too lazy to do it themselves) should be discouraged IMO. Other examples: [[1904]] - here I actually disagree with the proposal - why should information that does not represent percentages be represented using them? - but that's my personal view. [[1895]] - this one is asking for further perfection of a perfective information. [[1688]] - a '''huge''' example, asks for something that would require quite a lot of effort without helping anyone understand the comic, a cool project, but not needed for the article to be complete. [[1701]] - I really don't think this is necessary and the explanation is already twice the size I'd expect for such simple comic (*obligatory personal opinion disclaimer*).

'''3) Some tags are just... vague.''' [[1856]] and [[1733]]. "Someone could maybe improve this" applies to pretty much everything in the universe, sorry.


'''4) A policy proposal.''' Here comes the second half of the topic title. There appear to be two conflicting schools of thoughts among editors. Some seem to prefer long, meticulously detailed explanations. Others, including myself, prefer short and concise explanations. On more than one occasion, this has led to mess, so I think there should be some official policies about what kind of information should be considered considered necessary, useful, and superfluous. Obviously, every comic is different, and defining hard rules for this is impossible, so maybe "guideline" is a better word than "policy" here. Here are some suggestions about what this guideline could contain (please, take this as a "sub-suggestion", if a guideline gets accepted, but will end up containing nothing out of this, I will still be happy):

* NECESSARY: named people, groups, organizations, websites, works of art, geographic locations etc. should be briefly introduced, unless they can be presumed to be universally known (e.g. Google, Shakespeare, New York). Obscure words should be defined. Scientific and technical terms should be explained.
* SUPERFLUOUS: recursive explanations - an explanation that mentions concepts that themselves need explaining, but were not relevant to the comic itself.

I guess that's it. Maybe a little disclaimer that I don't have much time now, so I may not be here to further lead this discussion. Maybe I should have waited with posting this when I do have time, but that may not be for a long time, so for what it's worth, here it is.
--[[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 12:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

:Your "policy (or guideline) proposal" is that what's widely excepted here. There are some overwhelming explanations and you are welcome to help on more precise writings. But in general there is no censorship here, less important content may be moved to a trivia section below the transcript. Irrelevant content (who decides that?) may be moved to the talk page with a given reason. I'm also a fan of "short and concise explanations" but who will judge what this really is? Further more I really dislike many of those tables, it's bad layout. But changing this takes a lot of work. [[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

::The main reason why I want there to be an official policy is so the process of marking explanations as complete can be more straightforward. There would be a community-approved list of things an explanation needs to contain, if an explanation has all that, it is complete. Of course there would still be lot of room for interpretation because every comic is different and coming up with rules that fit all is impossible, but I believe this could still be a massive improvement over the current state.
::Also, '''please''', when I say something is merely a sub-suggestion, I mean it. Your reply gives me the feeling you understood my proposal as something along the lines of "We should make it an official policy that explanations should look like this:", whereas it was more along the lines of "There should be an official policy about what explanations should contain. Here is an example of what such policy could maybe look like:" [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 06:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
:::In general I don't think this is a big issue. The vast majority (99%) of the comics is ''not'' marked as incomplete and those you are citing here should be discussed at the corresponding talk pages. Thus I don't see a ''massive improvement'' anyway.
:::However we can enhance the proper section at the [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|Editor FAQ]] by one or two concise sentences. But when you say ''"There should be..."'' nothing would happen; that's why I say: ''"We should make it"''. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

== Tables vs bold text ==

There are many, many, many comics with several things mentioned in the comic that need to be individually explained, and there are two ways we can do it, one being tables (for example: [[1930: Calendar Facts]]), the other being using bold text to separate paragraphs into sections (for example: [[1972: Autogyros]]). The thing is for the most cases, it seems like we should be using tables, but then using bold text to seperate paragraphs looks better, and is also easier... So when should we use tables, and when bold text? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
:IMHO we have far too much tables - a structured floating text is much easier to read. Consider this:
:*A ''List of all planets in our solar'' system with a few columns for distance (in km, mi, and AU), size, and temperature. That's a classical table.
:*The table in [[1930: Calendar Facts]] contains far too much text in many cells. Try to read this on a smartphone. And furthermore on my ''Google Chrome for Android'' all the tables from this comic are not shown at all when using the ''Simplified View''.
:*Or compare this: [[1363: xkcd Phone]] and [[1549: xkcd Phone 3]]. I prefer the floating text and even more when I'm using a mobile device.
:But that's only my opinion.
:Nevertheless I'm also working on a real mobile version of this Wiki (similar to Wikipedia) and that will require some restrictions to the layout to get it properly rendered. But this will not happen before the FIFA World Cup 2018 is over ;) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
::Agreed. Narrow columns with simple facts are ok, but longer text should not be put in a table. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 10:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
::: I second this. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::::Please check also this new [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|Editor FAQ]] and the belonging talk page. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::Any updates? (Why) is it not just a matter of installing [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend the MobileFrontend-extension]? :) (See also above: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Mobile_friendly_website Mobile friendly website]) [[User:Coverbe|Coverbe]] ([[User talk:Coverbe|talk]]) 16:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

== Add the comic to the edit page ==

While editing the explanation, it would be nice to be able to see the comic on that same page, especially for the transcript. (it's difficult for mobile editors to see two pages at once)
:Please sign your comments, and that’s not possible from what I know, considering how this website is set up. (I can still edit fine on mobile)  [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Dark theme/night mode ==

Should I explain this?

It's for all of us who edit the wiki at 1am and like our retinas.

Firefox has a [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dark-theme-enhanced/?src=recommended Dark Theme Extension], and it looks pretty good on the Wiki. [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dark-theme-for-google-chr/annfbnbieaamhaimclajlajpijgkdblo Chrome does too], but I haven't tried it out.

== Change dates to match ISO 8601. ==

Can we change the timestamps to match [[1179: ISO 8601]]? I'm surprised this hasn't been suggested earlier [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

== Add bookmark ==

I have used some simple javascript to create a bookmarklet that automatically opens the wiki-page of the xkcd page that you are reading. I would like to provide it on the wiki. It works as follows.

1. Make a bookmark, give it a recognizable name.
2. For the url, enter the following: javascript: document.location = document.URL.replace('xkcd.com','explainxkcd.com');
3. Create the bookmark. To use it, open any xkcd page and click it to go to the corresponding wiki page.

Thanks for considering.
[[User:Kwonunn|Kwonunn]] ([[User talk:Kwonunn|talk]]) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks Kwonunn!  I've started collecting these helpful tools on a [[Browser helpers|new page]], to hopefully make them easier for others to find.  – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

== Regarding using facebook like and google captcha - Privacy concerns ==

Considering that they track users across various sites, it is not in the best interests of the users' privacy. 


https://complianz.io/google-recaptcha-and-the-gdpr-a-possible-conflict/  - This article explains the issues better than I can. 

Especially the users who use VPNs affected more - it takes noticeably longer and more tries to pass the google captcha. Preventing/dis-incentivizing new contributors from behind a VPN. There is anecdotal evidence (in the form of reddit posts) that google captcha discriminates firefox users and allow chrome users to get simpler challenges or none at all. 

The Facebook like button is an iframe. Users visiting this page(s) have not explicitly consented to being tracked by facebook and google. 

I am speculating here, but from the amount of data these two items are gathering, it seems possible to de-anonymize the users who are behind a vpn. I don't trust either of these companies to not grab the free data. In the article listed above, it seems captcha alone can capture a screenshot of the pages without users' (explicit) consent. I haven't read through all the privacy and terms.  

Captcha is necessary for avoiding spam. There are alternatives. Anything but google one should suffice. Regarding the facebook like button, I think that should be replaced by a link to the facebook page. {{unsigned ip|172.68.38.88}}
:I think this can be done only by admins, who are currently absent from this wiki. However regarding the Captcha, there is an easy fix: Register here, and log into your account (an one-time e-mail address is sufficient, if you are worried about your privacy). Also please sign your comments to talk pages and other discussions (such as this) - It will not show the IP related to you/your VPN, but one from cloudfare, so it will also not hurt your privacy, but automatically put a timestamp, etc.

:A different CAPTCHA is definitely needed. In my harded version of Firefox Google ReCAPTCHAs won't even work, so I need to open a different profile to edit Explain xkcd. [[User:CyanDinosaurDuck|CyanDinosaurDuck]] ([[User talk:CyanDinosaurDuck|talk]]) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

== Removing unnecessary 3-comic categories? ==

I count eight categories on explainxkcd that satisfy the following properties: 1. They have only three comics in them. 2. They aren't really a comic series; they just feature or reference a comic theme. 3. They aren't Featuring some person or character. In short, they seem to have no real reason to exist. (They're [[:Category:Spice_Girls|t]][[:Category:Wind_turbine|h]]e[[:Category:Ender%27s_Game|s]]o[[:Category:FernGully|n]][[:Category:Giraffes|e]]s.) So my proposal: remove them. -[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 20:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
:In addition, there are [[:Category:Sketches|t]][[:Category:BSD|h]][[:Category:Emacs|i]][[:Category:Identity_Theft|r]][[:Category:Katamari_Damacy|t]][[:Category:Super_Bowl|e]][[:Category:The_Matrix|e]][[:Category:Tournament_bracket|n]][[:Category:Traffic_light| ]][[:Category:Trebuchet|m]][[:Category:Wingsuit|o]][[:Category:Euler_diagrams|r]][[:Category:Pedantic|e]] four-comic categories that also seem rather in need of deletion.
:: Shouldn't the community at least have some time to expand on these categories, in case they're currently incomplete? For example, [[:Category:The Matrix]] is on your list and now contains 7 strips, and [[:Category:Tournament bracket]] got its 5th entry after your post. Even if they're not, a theme category can save some typing in the search box (and is probably also cheaper in terms of server resources than all the searches it'll eliminate). [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 22:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
:::So what do you think the limit should be for categories? Should we create a category when two comics mention the same topic? Three? --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 16:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Three seems reasonable to me, and I could see a case being made for two. Categories aren't expensive. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

== New transcript ==

The transcripts in the comic pages are quite inconsistent, especially in the brackets where you have to describe what happens in the panels. If I understand correctly, the transcripts are for people to copy the text in the comic without having to type them out. If that's the case, then I think propose a new transcript. This transcript should have the comic with the words erased, and then the copy-pasteable words on top of that. Such a transcript would have no room for error, which would let anyone contribute to a seamless transcript.
:The aim of the transcript is to provide a text-only version of the comic that would allow someone who is visually impaired to use a text-to-speech converter to understand the comic and also in a machine readable format for searching (see the [[explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ#What_is_the_format_of_the_transcript_section?|Editor FAQ]]). Anything using mark-up, images or anything other than plain text will interfere with this and so should be avoided in the transcript. [[User:A(l)Chemist|AlChemist]] ([[User talk:A(l)Chemist|talk]]) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

== Add title text and heading to transcript section ==

It has always bothered me that the transcript did not include the title text since it contributes so much to the humor of the comics. Also, it looks to me like the comic heading is sometimes included as part of the transcript and sometimes left out. I checked the previous proposals and did not see any discussion of these issues. Please consider having a policy going forward of including the heading and the title text within the transcript. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:To my understanding (and also others, see discussion directly above) one of the main points of the transcript is to make the comics searchable, the other is, to make it readable when images are not an option. In both cases the comic's name and the title text mentioned above and below the image should be sufficient. I personally think this convention is fine. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

::Pardon me -- (and, '''<big>''thanks'' for your patience</big>''') -- if this is too off-topic (/slash "boring") or [[wikt:TMI|TMI]] (see {{w|Information overload#Web accuracy}} e.g.), '''...OR''' if this should have been posted elsewhere ...instead of here. 

::IMHO the term '''"title text"''' is a misnomer. I think the term is used to refer to the little (or, '''BIG!''') pop-up -- (kinda like what is sometimes called a <code>"tooltip"</code>, but ... aren't those usually pretty '''small?''') -- that appears when one "hovers" his mouse [pointer] over an XKCD cartoon. ...at least, according to '''the "Talk:" page section''' [[Template talk:comic#The template field called .22titletext.22]] which was added almost 3 years ago. I think that calling it a <code>"BONUS text"</code> would be even better than calling it a "caption". However, [to me], '''either one''' of those terms would make sense ''WAY'' more than calling it a '''"title text"''' ... for reasons which are stated in the [Template] "Talk:" page section mentioned (and ... '''LINKED TO''') above.<br/>'''<big>Any Comments?  .  .  ''' *** Thanks! *** for listening!</big> --[[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] ([[User talk:Mike Schwartz|talk]]) 08:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Hi Mike, I see your point, and yes, something like "bonus text" might be a bit more descriptive.  But FWIW, I think the reason it's called "title text" is because that's the text that appears in the <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_global_title.asp title]</code> attribute of the HTML <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.asp &lt;img&gt;]</code> tag of the comic's image on the xkcd.com site.  For example, at https://xkcd.com/2364/, the code for the comic image looks like this:
<pre>
<img src="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation.png"
     title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."
     alt="Parity Conservation"
     srcset="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation_2x.png 2x">
</pre>
:::In there, you can see the title text as <code>title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."</code>  See [[title text|here]] for more explanation about that, and some discussions about it [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous#Common mistake|here]].  – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

== Wikipedia links. ==

I think the links to Wikipedia should have symbols, so it's not confusing which ones lead to other comic pages.

== It's time to remove the HTTPS lock icon ==

Explainxkcd should do the same thing that browser makers have done: treat HTTPS as the modern standard, and mark HTTP as the deviation instead.

Here are appropriate replacement icons:
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(32_bit).png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(4_bit).gif
- [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

== New page for Randall's regular column in the New York Times ==
Randall Munroe has been writing and illustrating a monthly science column in the New York Times.  I suggest a page in this Wiki, indexing those columns.  For some reason the New York Times itself does not provide such an index.  If they ever do add one, we would still have a topic article here, similar to the one we have for the What If blog, that could link to their index.  --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
------
=== New York Times column: Good Question ===

'''Good Question''' is a more-or-less monthly column written and illustrated by '''[[Randall|Randall Munroe]]'''  in the '''[https://www.nytimes.com/section/science Science section of the New York Times]''', beginning in November 2019.  The columns give serious answers to science questions, in Munroe's inimitable style.

The New York Times website ordinarily requires registration, and its content is always protected by copyright.  Most particularly it is ''not'' under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License] the way [[xkcd]] is.  The good news: anyone can register for a free digital subscription to the New York Times, with access to 'recent' Science articles among some others, but outside of that only five articles per month.  See [https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/info/help/freesearch.html Free Articles].

Unlike for many of their other regular columnists, the New York Times does not provide a clickable link either on the byline '''Randall Munroe''' or on the column title '''Good Question'''.  The following tables are intended to correct that omission.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''by'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/science/what-makes-a-red-sky-at-night-and-at-morning.html What Makes a Red Sky at Night (and at Morning)]
| Randall Munroe
| Aug. 13, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/science/randall-munroe-moon.html If I Touched the Moon, What Would It Feel Like?]
| Randall Munroe
| Nov. 12, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2019/12/10/science/earth-size-mass.html Is Earth Getting Bigger Over Time?]
| Randall Munroe
| Dec. 10, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/science/human-running-speed-quadruped.html How Fast Can a Human Run?]
| Randall Munroe
| Jan. 21, 2020 / Feb. 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/science/worst-odor-smell-thioacetone.html What’s the World’s Worst Smell?]
| Randall Munroe
| Feb. 17, 2020 / Feb. 26, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2020/03/10/science/question-randall-munroe-bobsled-gravity.html What if Galileo Had Dropped Bobsleds From the Tower of Pisa?]
| Randall Munroe
| March 10, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/science/pulsar-xkcd-munroe-stars.html How’s the View From a Spinning Star?]
| Randall Munroe
| April 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/science/traffic-barrier-rice-krispies.html What’s the Sweetest, Crispiest Way to Stay Safe in a Car Crash?]
| Randall Munroe
| May 11, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/science/randall-munroe-question-eggs.html Can You Boil an Egg Too Long?]
| Randall Munroe
| June 9, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/neutrinos-snowball-randall-munroe.html Could You Make a Snowball of Neutrinos?]
| Randall Munroe
| July 7, 2020
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''about'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! LINK BY LINK
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26link.html This Is Funny Only if You Know Unix]
| Noam Cohen
| May 26, 2008
|-
! BITS
| [https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/techs-favorite-cartoonist-enters-mainstream-publishing/ Tech’s Favorite Cartoonist Enters Mainstream Publishing]
| Noam Cohen
| March 14, 2014
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/randall-munroe-the-creator-of-xkcd-explains-complexity-through-absurdity.html He’s Glad You Asked]
| Kenneth Chang
| Nov. 3, 2014
|-
! BOOKS
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/books/randall-munroe-explains-it-all-for-us.html Randall Munroe Explains It All for Us]
| Alexandra Alter
| Nov. 23, 2015
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/randall-munroe-xkcd-science-textbook.html Randall Munroe, XKCD Creator, Goes Back to High School]
| Kenneth Chang
| March 21, 2016
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/18/science/document-Munroepages.html Randall Munroe of ‘XKCD’ Explains the Human Body, Elevators and the Saturn 5]
| (Actual pages from '''{{w|Thing_Explainer|Thing&nbsp;Explainer}}''')
| March 21, 2016
|}
------

: Looks goods to me, you should probably make that an article of its own, maybe [[New York Times: Good Question]]? --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 22:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

: {{notice|I went and added the page, here: [[New York Times: Good Question]] --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 02:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)}}

== Bring back the {{rw}} template! please ==

Can someone restore the <nowiki>{{rw}}</nowiki> template? I insist on its existence. I further assure that it will be of much use. It was deleted by an admin. <span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 06:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:nm, did it myself.<span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 04:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

== Link to high-resolution images? ==

The wiki includes the "standard" resolution images, but would it be worth adding a link to the higher-resolution image on each page?  It appears that this could be automated in at least a strong majority of cases: if the standard image is ''xyzzy.png'', the hi-res one is ''xyzzy'''_2x'''.png'' . [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
:Please stop adding this to the explanations. This is not needed.  [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
::The high-resolution image was quite useful in parsing the "Amelia's Farm Fresh Cookies" comic. I'm not convinced that the hi-res images are commonly known. I've been reading xkcd for about 7 years and hadn't heard about them until I stumbled across a mention of them in one of the Discussions here. What is the harm in having a one-line ''link'' here? -- not, I emphasize, the actual image, which would take up a great deal of space. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
:::I didn't know about the high-resolution images either.  While it might be a bit repetitive to add a full sentence to every comic's explanation, I agree that having ''some'' easy way to link to the hi-res image on xkcd.com could be handy.  For example, maybe a "hi-res" or "2x" button before the "Next >" button above the comic in [[Template:comic]]?  That's a bit extreme, but I added an example template, derived from the existing [[Template:comic]], to demonstrate how that could work:
:::* Template: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Template:comic 2x test]]
:::* Demo: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Sandbox#2x comic template test]]
:::With those changes to the template, for all comics as of [[1084]] the "2x" button would automatically appear.  (No need to go back and change all comics.)  This assumes the images hosted on explainxkcd generally have the same filename as on xkcd.com, but there are optional parameters to override the filename or omit the "2x" button altogether for specific exceptions.  I'm not suggesting we actually go ahead and implement this; but if there was enough interest, an admin would be needed anyway, to make the changes within [[Template:comic]], which is currently protected.  – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
::::FWIW, I like this. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::My proposal is that a bot should add it automatically to the description of each comic image when available so that it does not take up space anywhere and is easily accessible.<span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Proposal to replace the top section with this... ==

I have come up with a new design for the top section of all community portals...
It’s located here... https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Sandbox&oldid=199882 <span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
<hr/>
{|-
|valign="top" width="80%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big><b>Proposals</b></big></big>

<i>Ideas to improve the wiki's design and organization can be added here.</i> {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=<small>(+post)</small>}}

|valign="top" xalign="right" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app package settings blue.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Technical]][[File:Crystal Clear teamwork.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination]][[File:Mop.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests]][[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous]]
|}

== I made a template for welcoming new users. ==

{{Welcome}}
<hr/>
Any ideas? Suggestions? Objections?<span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
: this is now in at the top of the Main Page --[[User:Jeff|<b><font color="orange">Jeff</font></b>]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::Why? This looks like a template intended for (newly created) UserPages. And it replaces interesting data from the frontpage with something not useful for casual visitors (or even non-casual lurkers). I'd undo this change in an instant if I had authority to do so. ((The template looks good, to clarify, just obviously not intended to be in that location.)) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.154|141.101.76.154]] 01:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:::[[User: Jeff|Jeff]] is the owner of explainxkcd you dingus. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 7px black">[[User:Beanie|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 4px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

== comic groups ==

i think we should have a tech problems list of comics ( as there are quite a few)
:We already have a category for it. [[:Category:Cueball_Computer_Problems]].<span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Archiving interactive comics? ==

Has the possibility of archiving interactive comics been discussed? Of course, users can view them on the original website, but it’d be nice to have a working backup of sorts, especially considering some of the interactive comics haven’t aged too well in terms of compatibility or support (e.g. Umwelt displays a blank page for me.)

It probably wouldn’t be possible to do so directly from mediawiki, but I’d be happy to experiment with cloning a few of them on another server, or as simple PHP pages that could be embedded, if it would help. Most of the interactive comics appear to be implemented mostly in client side JS anyways, so replicating them shouldn’t be too bad.

[[User:Tague|Tague]] ([[User talk:Tague|talk]]) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

== Replace head shots of characters in the wiki with these new and high quality head shots! ==

https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/n2u28r/i_took_head_shots_of_the_reccuring_characters_and/

These are not only upscaled, but are all squares and have all the features of the characters.<span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 03:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
:I think you should do it (because higher quality = better) :] <span style="text-shadow:0 0 7px black">[[User:Beanie|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 4px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
::There seemed to be no objections, so I went ahead and did it.<span> — [[User:Sqrt-1|The <b>𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|<span style="color: blue">stalk</span>]]</sup></span> 12:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

== Cleaning up [[Special:WantedTemplates|Special: Wanted Templates]] ==

I decided to take a look at the list of wanted templates. Imagine my surprise when I see that a lot of the templates wanted were mis-capitalizations or misspellings of existing templates. I hereby request permission to create redirect pages for some of the most popular errors. 
I intend to do five, wait a week, and do another five as to not spam the wiki. I will not begin for a week, at which point I will only proceed if nobody has said no OR a moderator has said yes. May I proceed? [[User talk:Quillathe Siannodel|<sup>{)|(}</sup>]][[User:Quillathe_Siannodel|Quill]][[Special:Contributions/Quillathe_Siannodel|<sub>{)|(}</sub>]] 11:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

== Knit Cap ==
Sometimes Knit cap has long hair, sometimes short. Is Knit Cap meant to be a male character that sometimes has long hair, or is Knit Cap sometimes female? I want to clear this up before I finish editing [[1350: Lorenz]]. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 7px black">[[User:Beanie|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 4px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:Hm, in the 'Enemy Pikachu used theft' scene in [[1350: Lorenz]], Knit Cap's hair looks merely slightly unkempt. From this, I will assume that Knit Cap just sometimes has long hair and is always male. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::Ok, the official transcripts say that Knit Cap is 'A guy in a knit cap'. I will take that to mean that Knit Cap is definitely male.

== We still need to complete some explanations like this one: ==

I think should change the banner shown at the top of every page to show a comic that is still incomplete, like Hoverboard or something. [[User:Sure|Sure]] ([[User talk:Sure|talk]]) 21:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

== Update MediaWiki ==
explainxkcd is running MediaWiki 1.30.0, which reached end-of-life in June 2019. There are likely security issues because of this, so please update MediaWiki to the latest version (or LTS) using the instructions here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 19:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
:It seems like the mysql is too outdated for the upgrade [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
::Upgrade MySQL then[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu|talk]]) 03:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to contact an admin for this? I have no clue. [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 03:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== Allow Users to Edit their own talk page if not auto confimed ==

I can edit this page, but I can't create my own talk page! [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

== Upgrade Icons ==

The icons look quite old fashion (the ones on the sidebar and the ones above the editing text area), could they be replaced? [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
:They probably could be, but changing icons the moment they're not absolutely cutting-edge just means using new icons that are as easily edged-out (as tastes change yet again), meanwhile annoying those who prefered the first set and rather wouldn't see a revolving door of ever-evolving aesthetics.
:If I had a vote, I'd say keep the simple glyphs we're used to. If any are not totally obvious (perhaps some would not be, without the text captions) consider revising, but I think you'll get less agreement on what new images to use than that which would advocate the retention of the current ones.
:Alternately, it would definitely be on-theme to find Randall-drawn illustrations to replace them all. But the constraints of adapting (say) any particular stick-figure-world depiction of randonmess to ''meaningfully'' replace the current Random Page icon (at the same scale!) might be less than optimal.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

== Make searchbar not case-sensitive ==

The way the search bar is currently set, it only suggests comic links when what is being typed is capitalized ("Assigning Numbers" rather than "assigning numbers" for instance). Would be nice if we could make it not case-sensitive :D [[User:Char Latte49|Wielder of the Staple Gun]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 02:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:Good idea. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== Do not allow ordinary users to edit redirects that are just numbers ==

This overrides the default page you're sent to when you check a comic; e.g. recently a vandal edited the page entitled "2614" so it overrode the actual page, [[2614: 2]] on the main page.
:The problem would be when creating a new page and the overrides are needed... [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== ExplainXKCD discord (or other platform)? ==

I'm just saying if we had instant messages, pings etc. there would be a lot faster reaction to vandals. 
The community portal is hard to get attention from and comments are all very well and good but conversations on Discord could get very quick response, and people could request edits, organise page re-writing etc.
Idk if we can get "official" backing by anyone high up but we could make one anyways?
:The problem with platforms like Discord or others is that we can't guarantee that everyone has access to them; on the wiki, anyone can edit, while some people may not have access to discord or such. A possible solution would be having a sort of service built into the wiki, but not sure how that might be done. Besides, this is a wiki, not an xkcd chat site. This is a good idea, though. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
::Anyone can create a discord account like anyone can create an account on this wiki. You don't even need a dedicated client/app as it can run in browser. Just like the wiki. Just my two cents. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Some user may not wish anyone to be able to contact them outside this wiki. You do not need an acount to edit this wiki... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== So, I got a question about transcripts. ==

A lot of comics show links (e.g.: all the ones with a drawing of wikipedia on it), and the transcripts don't really have a standard. In the transcript, should it be an actual link or just blue text or what? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.52|162.158.79.52]] 15:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:I'd say that if the linked thing (presuming it's a real linkable target!) is linked in the Explanation, it doesn't need to be (re)linked in the ostensibly flat-and-descriptive Transcript.
:And I know that some Transcripts are hypertext formatted to emulate the thing they are transcribed from (whether bolded, enbiggened, sub-/superscripted and and/or given the hue) but maybe ''primarily'' the "<code>[:Text that describes the text]</code>" should be explaining the details, in case the screen-reader (or text-searching algorithm grepping the Transcript text for "green text" or "superscript" instances can't quite work it out from the various style-tags that can be applied to that effect in so many an various ways.
:But this is IMO, I don't know if there's a specific policy about it, but it is how I've seen it vaguely applied... Not everywhere quite so consistently, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
::We try to keep links and explanations out of the transcript. The link and the explanation goes in the explanation section above. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== Use 2X Images ==

Apparently xkcd.com provides double-sized versions of almost every comic if you add '''_2x''' to the end of the image name. For instance,

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches.png

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches_2x.png

Since we are in 2022 and computers can load high-resolution images just fine, and they are easier to read, I propose that this website should use the provided double-sized images. Really, I think Randall ought to be doing this himself as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.18.107|172.68.18.107]] 12:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

:While I agree with using the higher quality images which are default on xkcd.com for many people, there has been [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Link_to_high-resolution_images.3F discussion] about this issue already. At the moment, the consensus seems to be to continue using the 'standard' size to 'use less space,' and instead link to the higher quality image on the image page. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

::I think I may have mentioned it on that link (or similar), but often when the 2x image is used (or even an unwise too wide image/unbreakable-line-of-content) the explainxkcd site cannot sensibly handle it and it forces the default 'page width' of stuff into a zoomed out narrower column to the left (including the margin-line normally inset a dozen or so pixels in from the right) so that browser-window can display the whole of this wide element.
::While "saving space" does apply to server resources and viewer download bandwidth/quotas (e.g.[https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection.png 53kb] vs [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection_2x.png 109kb]) may seem insignificant, screen-space can be badly hit by this.
::The motherlode xkcd site has code behind it to (usually?) serve the right image for the right displays, but explainxkcd isn't currently equipped to do the same choose-and-provide (which would need ''both'' images uploaded to it and a revised {{template|comic}} implementation, once we work out the method it could use). And I've never seen any case where the 'low quality' comic is conversely too small and narrow to appreciate (though occasionally the larger one reveals minor drawing details that have been obscured by the downscaling), just when the _2x one makes everything ''else'' too small.
::...this may not apply to everyone's browser implementation, but it definitely happens, and consistently, on my usual Chrome and/or Firefox on Windows and/or Android platforms (according to which system I happen to be on at the time). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 21:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
:::ExplainXKCD actually does have the capability to do this. For example, see [[1079:_United_Shapes]]. It generates multiple images, automatically choosing one based on screen size (similar to how xkcd.com does it). The bot could use the `imagesize` parameter to keep the image within the page's width by using the 'standard' image size. This does add a button labeled "click to enlarge," but if that is annoying, the comic template can be modified to hide that button if specified.
:::Here is what it might look like:
:::{{cot}}
{{User:Theusaf/Template:comic_2x
| number    = 2647
| date      = July 18, 2022
| title     = Capri Suns
| image     = capri_suns_2x.png
| titletext = [As security is dragging me away] "Come on, at least I didn't make the mistake in the other direction!"
| imagesize = 315x317px
| noexpand  = true
}}
{{cob}}
:::which is clearer than the original comic page and the same size. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 05:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::::As specificaly implemented above, I certainly see no immediate problem (need to check across machines/devices), but I suspect that part of the mechanism here is the "imagesize = 315x317px", which seems like it would need (albeit by the page-create bot, algorithm8cally) to be tailored to the 'input' image, not always in this ratio). I'm not technically conversant with the nature of your back-end scripting and doubtless it's all possible (scripts can do almost anything... once you know that they (may) need to do them and rewritten them to catch all the contingencies ;) ), but I don't know know if that's something you've accounted for (e.g. test with a three/four-panel wide comic, or the Earth Temperature Timeline or whatever, and see if it can facilitate them all nicely). Not to mention that if theusafBOT goes offline, the manual-add instructions (as used prior to your replacing the prior functioning bot, for which I thank you) also need this extra step of user involvement to be done, whereas usually the fallback manual method needed little thought in this direction (or indeed however much carbon or silicon there is in the 'brain' involved) except for exceptional circumstances or those rare prior slip-ups by Randall.
::::I'm just going through the first obvious issue (to me), didn't mean to concentrate so many words on just this before even checking everything else! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 09:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::Basically, on the backend, the bot will fetch both the small and the large images, and measure the size of the small image, which is what it will use for the <code>imagesize</code>. I have actually used this system in the past for this bot, but was told to revert it due to the "click comic to enlarge" text. As for if the bot goes offline, there is no problem with falling back to the small image, and if editors want to, I can also provide instructions for using the large image. I'm mostly just waiting to see what others think about this. Are there any other problems to consider? —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

== I'm making an App that collects web comics ==

My original idea was to use the rss feed present on xkcd, and other webcomic websites, but now im starting to wonder if there was a way to make a better service, that allowed users to maybe look at older comics, and explanations and such as well, and thats how i happened to come across explainxkcd.com. The RSS Feed for this website, would be pretty helpful, if it were like reddit's but apparently, the rss feed is only maintained for the home page. I was wondering if you guys provided that data through an API or something? Also are there wikis for other famous comics like this one? Any other suggestions and ideas for the app are welcome 🙌🙌.

== Comics edited after their publication ==

many more comics have been changed than are in Category:Comics edited after their publication ! please add them (i already have done two i remember off the top of my head) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.223|172.70.134.223]] 12:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

== What if 2 book page creation ==
What if 2 has come out, but I don't know which page is to be created. There is already a comic under the same name. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

== Default to 3 Section Headings for Each Explanation: Non-Obvious Info, Recap, and Background Trivia ==

This is a proposal that all new comic explanations should, by default, have 3 Sections:

'''I. Explanation of the Non-Obvious''' (an actual explanation of the non-obvious elements of the comic for the average reader who might not understand the references/joke/relevant science)

'''II. Full Recap'''

'''III. Background Trivia'''

Most of us can agree that Category I is where the value of this website shines.

But today, all 3 of these categories of explanation are typically merged together, making it hard to find the Category I nuggets of goodness.

If we make these 3 section headings the default on every comic explanation, then this default will helpfully nudge editors to put the juiciest stuff up top, and not to clutter that section up with fluff or trivia.

——

As an example, take the recent comic #2878 about Astronomer Happiness and Supernova distance.

The main thing a lay reader would want to know — the Category I information — is…

..That the shape of the graph is probably a clever reference to a Light Curve, a type of supernova graph

..why astronomers like it when a supernova is close, and what happens when it gets too close

Everything else in the (currently) very wordy explanation gets in the way of the lay reader finding out these two things. It’s a bunch of Category II and Category III info that makes it hard to tease out the Category I info. It’s not BAD information, but it’s sandpaper. It’s friction slowing down the average reader.

Obviously I could go in and edit this particular comic, and I often do this kind of edit, but I think this issue pops up for most explanations, so I think changing the standard default interface will help everyone put their contribution into the right section.

In sum, my proposal would elevate Category I info to the top of each explanation, so instead of full recaps, we get right into the explanation that is going to be most efficiently illuminating for the average, non-expert reader, answering the most common questions.

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:In general (if I get dibs on the edit, or think I can legitimately re-edit/rearrange), I do try to go for "hook, line, sinker" format (i.e. establish the basics, relate that to what the comic shows, move on to any relevent speculations/extrapolations), very like your setup. Though it is often ''much'' too complicated (multi-layered, cross-disciplinary, etc, so that maybe it has to be interwoven 'mini explanations' per tabulated item) so I'm not sure how easy it would be to enforce a strict structure. I think there's merit to the principle, though. Assuming we can all agree what each comic needs focus on (apply that problem to the following proposal too!), as I've occasionally inserted a sort of "first you need to know <subject>" into an established cold-start explanation ("you see <foo>" only for a later editor to consider it more an afterthought and shuffle it to later ("you see <foo>" ... "<foo> is part of <subject>"), or variations on such layouts. Especially as different people have different ideas as to what's obvious/can be keyword-wikilinked and what needs more waffle to properly enlighten readers.
:Also, prosaic variation is a good thing. Too formulaic and it could be (whilst accurate) considered too robotic, so some leaway should really always be allowed as we collectively bash together a community interpretation and elaboration. Within communal guidelines, clearly. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.203|172.69.194.203]] 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== FAQ Style Editing should be the norm ==

Simply, we should experiment with more FAQ-style explanations. 

We think of the top questions that the average reader might have about a comic, and we use those as bolded headers to explain the most curious/confusing/subtle/sciency parts of the comic.

The structure would be this (using a recent comic as an example)…

'''Q: Why did Randall use this shape of graph?'''
A: It’s likely a clever reference to a Light Curve, a similarly shaped graph in the study of supernovae that…

'''Q: Why do astronomers prefer it when supernovae are closer?'''
A: It makes it easier to glean information because…

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== sidebar revamp ==
I think that the sidebar looks plain and it should have a new design. It could be voted on by users [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 02:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:In leiu of you telling us what you think would be better, my starting vote is that I'm perfectly happy with that 'plain'. If it has the links I might need, why does it need a reskin? Or, worse, a functional revamp which probably removes the easy to use bits I was using already.
:...could you do a mock-up screenshot (or render equivalents directly in markup) of before/after side by side, at least? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.120|172.69.194.120]] 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My biggest problem is it doesn’t scroll down with you which can be a big pain [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
:Don't know about anyone else, but (when not on a desktop) I read this on a tablet, in landscape, with the effective window quite short (ratio of 1:2 with width, approaching 1:3.5 with already narrowed onscreen keyboard popped up) and if I'm scrolled to the top I see nothing beyond Browse Comics.
:If we assume separate scroll-control on the sidebar, setting Main Page at the top of browser pane gives What Links Here at the bottom. Now, I rarely use the next three links (or at least reach those pages using them), and separate scrolling wouldn't stop me even seeing the even lower Ad bit (but it ''would'' defeat the entire purpose of the Ad, in that position, whether or not I bother to notice it these days).
:So whatever missing about you propose, I'm betting it would impact me. Perhaps not negatively, but I've seen enough awful assumptions about my screen-area in the name of scroll-free design. Including the "give us permission (or not) to give you cookies" popovers where it appears the actual buttons to confirm (or deny, or go somewhere to review and customise, if they have that option) are beyond the bottom of my screen. I can temporarily rotate the screen, of course, but often I just back out and don't bother in those cases. I wouldn't be reticent to rotate this site, on occasion, but ''I'd really rather not have to'', if I can be so selfish and stick-in-the-mud, because websites just are not good to use (even temporarily) in narrow-portait mode. (What's worse is the websites that detect I'm on a mobile platform and redesign styles/placements on-the-fly to 'fit portrait view', assuming a vertical smartphone, ''regardless'' of my actual viewport orientation, etc.)
:So, please, a hard no from me. Notwithstanding that just as solidly "always browse in portrait" people might be overjoyed at changes that would give ''them'' a better site design. But that's a tricky circle to square (or letterbox!), and not what you were suggesting anyway (now we know what it is). I just want to plea that any changes be made with a very good idea of all the knock-on effects of 'improving' certain edge-cases, especially when it comes to yet other edge-cases. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.23|172.70.85.23]] 10:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
==New Logo and Banner Proposals==
:I have new logo and banner proposals for this site.
:They're made on Scratch, an all-ages block-based programming language, and are in the style of Right Click.
:Here they are!
:Logo proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png
:Banner proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banner_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.37|01:54, 19 February 2024}}
::I can't see the xkcdicity of the logo, really. The banner is certainly flavourful in the right way (does it scale down well? ...is that what your use of Scratch is for, as opposed to standard static Photoshop/GIMP image editing?), but not sure it'll work better for the current top-left-of-page xkcd (with three xkcd figurses idling away, sat on the letters).
::Decent concept art for something else related, certainly. I could believe it was a Randall's-own  interactive comic front-end of some kind (which would make sense of the "play button" that is the "►"-bit). Given that it's now in a programming system already, have you tried making a drag'n'click game of the idea of linking/looping the blue-trail, and animating the hanging-on characters? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.29|172.70.90.29]] 13:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::It's an arrow, not a play button. Get it right. {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.72|01:05, 20 February 2024}}
::::Hold your horses... I was just trying to find a good reason for the whatever-it-is triangle to be there (gave the example of a 'play' button in my speculated usefulness of it). And it isn't really obviously any more of an arrow (c.f. "→"), either. I like your(?) banner's use of xkcd-figures, just not sure where the logo exhibits any form of being xkcd-related, except by the literal reading of it.
::::Perhaps if it were "xkcd font" (i.e. artfully composited from actual samples of Randall's ALLCAPS comic-writing) then it wouldn't matter so much, but I just wouldn't say it was any more on-brand than the current logo/etc. This being intended as constructive criticism, I hope you understand. And there's more opinions than mine, so maybe I've indeed just missed some point that ''everyone else'' (especially named-users) have already realised. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.5|172.70.86.5]] 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

== Regarding precision in the Unexplained popup ==

Would it be possible to add an extra decimal point for the sake of precision? Currently, it shows that 0% of comics are unexplained, which is (as of 13:21 UTC on March 27, 2024) incorrect. It's a small thing, but it's rather annoying. {{unsigned ip|162.158.158.233|13:23, 27 March 2024}}
:With the current 2911 comics (give or take #404), 0.1% would be slightly under 3 comics. You'd need at least three before 0.1% appeared instead of the equally unuseful 0.0%.
:I'm of the "at least give everyone a week before you unilaterally declare it 'done'..." camp, so right now ''just'' the latest M/W/F comic incomplete would hover at a token 0.1%.
:(Actually, from two (0.06...% rounded up) to 4 (0.13...% rounded down. The good news is that it'll be almost seven years until two-rounded-up is insufficient, but also up to six-rounded-down is now "0.1%", if I've not goofed the carries/etc.)
:If going to the trouble of editing it to 1DP, make it 2DP with ''exactly'' the same editing effort..?
<blockquote><!-- Edited version of current Main page source below here -->
<center>
<font size=5px>''Welcome to the '''explain [[xkcd]]''' wiki!''</font><br>
We have an explanation for all [[:Category:All comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:All comics|R}}-1}}''' xkcd comics]],
<!-- Note: the -1 in the calculation above is to discount "comic" 404,
     which is not really a comic, even though we've categorised it so. -->
and only {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}}
({{#expr: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} / {{LATESTCOMIC}} * 100 round 2}}%) [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|are incomplete]]. Help us finish them!
</center>
</blockquote><!-- Edited version of current Main page source above here -->
:(As of time of posting, the above says "only 2 (0.07%)". From 0.0687049...% rounded up to 2DP.)
:Though given that we're only going to go into the future,{{Citation needed}} I suggest we can state the flat-out number. It's not now really going to be as scarily huge as it might have been, as the actual percentage becomes generally less significant.
:And, for niceness, give it a grammatically/factually agreeable form:
<blockquote><!-- exemplars start -->
;General form:
:<code><nowiki>... and {{#ifeq: <!-- count here --> | 0 | no | <!-- count here --> }} comic{{#ifeq: <!-- count here --> | 1 |  | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: <!-- count here --> | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...</nowiki></code>
;Zero cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 0 | 0 | no | <!-- count here, unused --> }} comic{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 |  | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;One case (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 1 | 0 | no | 1 }} comic{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 |  | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Multiple cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 42 | 0 | no | 42 }} comic{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 |  | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Current cases (dynamic):
:... and {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 0 | none | {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} }} comic{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 |  | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
</blockquote><!-- end of exemplars -->
:...easy to replicate to get "Help us finish them!" to change (upon a zero-test truth) to "But they all might be improvable!". Or change the :Cat:Link to not even be a link when zero, with alternate phrasing dodged over to in order to avoid "no comics are incomplete" in other ways.
:I wrote the above for minimal nesting of overlapping conditions. You might prefer just to go with <code><nowiki>{{#ifeq: <count> | 0 | <whole "zero cases" version> | {{#ifeq: <count> | 1 | <whole "single case" version> | <whole "plurality of cases" version> }} }}</nowiki></code> - both approaches involve repetitions, but maybe this other one can be given a ''degree'' of wikimarkup-readability within each case, to take pity on future editors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.166|172.70.160.166]] 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

== Hear me out: What If? discussion page.  ==

That's it. That's my idea. Go crazy, everyone. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. I would like a page on each What If entry. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::I've thought about this, over the years. Having 'a page' (rather than the summary table, in the [[what if? (blog)|overview page]], etc) does sound more completist than what we currently have but I then tend to hit the main ontological problem...
::In the What-Ifs, Randall takes a 'simple' question and then ''explains'' the consequences. At length. A 'comic page' structure (starting with how we'd deal with the multiple midpoint images, so we would stray far from using the {{template|comic}} introduction) that followed the header(image,etc)/explanation/transcript/(trivia)/included-comments format would be silly and have many parts inappropriate. Remove the Transcript, for starters. ''Or'' need a mini-Transcript for each 'illustrative' image. (e.g. ":[Black Hat:] What if we tried more power?", several times.)
::Is there an actual need to ''explain Randall's explanation..''? Because that's the only thing 'we' can do. Which is rather silly, and seems like it would take a small (entertainingly rambling) essay and expand it into a large (pedantically rambling) one.
::Or else we just straight-copy the What-If over here as a 'backup'-blag? Allowable, but not exactly a USP, there'll be Internet Archive and personal copies, should things go bad at Randall's end. Not really a noble-cause.
::My suggestion, as to how to cover the remaining "explanation gap" and provide a useful 'service' that's worthwhile maintaining, is ''maybe'' two What If? (Blag) sub-pages:
::#A place to collate all inter-text images (and hover-/title-texts), and Transcript them, for easy searching.
::#*e.g. when you know you want to refer to the "bomb to the eyeball" one (internally or for something external) but think you might not realise where you need to go to (the supernova neutrinos one!) just by scrolling a bare comic list.
::#*Or you'd like to see, at a glance, how many different places the Black Hat Try More Power running joke occurs.
::#*Even if you don't want to open the page itself (160+ 'comics' with say 5 images each, is an 800ish-image page, less rationalising 'repeats' to a single entry), it should at least give you a search result for "dry waterfall" that points you in the direction of the "Niagra Straw" one (and maybe others?).
::#*I could see these being brief Image/Titletext/Transcript/(optional explanatory context), but not enough material to make them separate comic-style-pages in their own right, right?
::#Something of the same 'collation page mechanism' for all those superscript-popup-'footnote' bits. Though I admit I'm not entirely sure for what purpose except that it just ''seems'' like a good "collection page" to maintain. Perhaps to offer updated onward-links if any of the originals suffer link-rot? (But then, that fate can occur to all non-popupped links, so maybe I've chosen the wrong thing to highlight.)
::...the question is, what do you want from it. Bear in mind that if you can creae pages here then you can set up what ''you'' think you'd like to see (e.g. for What-If#1, for starters) then get the community to assess it. Do it as a sub-page to your Userspace, maybe, as proof-of-concept.
::Just because it's not been seen as necessary so far, doesn't mean it's not necessary. I've thought about it a lot (not thst I'm in a position to inplement anything), but I've only decided that I don't see a need for a straight copy (others' views may differ on that) and not enough reason to pester for ''my'' 'ideas' to be fulfilled. But I aint 'in charge' here, and happily so. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.100|172.69.194.100]] 11:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::You make a fair point. He did already explain in great detail what would happen if [x] scenario happened. It just seems like it would be nice to have a page exclusively for discussing all the ''What If'' articles. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::::People just need to make a draft or two and see what happens. Be sure to link a draft here if one is created, I would like to help on it. "I want to learn more and explore this scenario further" is a valid feeling to have. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

== Randall-ify the Captcha ==

Let's have some fun:  Is it feasible to replace the Captcha with something "xkcd-ish" like "click on Randall's work" with a mix of XKCD stuff and generic pictures.  If not, how about a replacing it with a quiz like "which of the following IS [or IS NOT] xkcd character" with one obvious correct answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.75|172.68.26.75]] 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:are YOU able to create a CAPTCHA from scratch? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::Choose any images that contain user-made CAPTCHAs from the following selection. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

== Incomplete Tag Vote ==

I think each comic's discussion page should have a section to vote on whether the explanation is complete or not. How long do you think the voting period should be?[[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Rather than a voting period, I think it would be ideal if people could "vote" on the completeness of an article at any time. As I go through all the old pages, I come across lots of pages that feel a little bit incomplete. It would be nice if we had a measurement of completion that wasn't binary. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 10:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Feel free to add the incomplete tag again. But don't forget to mention WHY (either in the tag or the discussion or both) you think it's incomplete. :) The tag is mainly there so you can have a list of "incomplete" comics. A comic is either on that list or it isn't. This is pretty much binary. As for voting: If I think an explanation is complete and it bothers me that it's flagged as not I generally juts make a comment in the discussion asking if someone has still something to add or actually knows WHY it's still incomplete. If there's no response after a few days I delete the tag. There's no need to make a voting out of this. And if somone strongly disagrees to you there's always the "Undo"-link ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Sometimes I just feel "this could use more detail," without specifically knowing what the detail would look like. This can be a problem when it's about explaining complicated science: the "completion" of a description of quantum mechanics that is readable by a novice, is very subjective. I am realizing the problem with the persistent voting idea tho: many people will vote something as "incomplete" but wouldn't come back to check on it later. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 12:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm more in the "less is more" camp. Most of my recent contributions to this wiki were deleting parts of bloated explanations: You don't need to explain quantum mechanics unless it's absolutely crucial for understanding the respective comic. Of course, if you are an expert in any given field, [[2501|it's hard to tell]] whether or not the current explanation is sufficient for a layperson and most contributors tend to write "too much". Which is totally fine. People like me take care of the "too much". ;) So, if you are an expert in quantum mechanics ignore "completed" comics about quantum mechanics. Surely you could contribute a lot to it but chances are high that most of it is unnecessary for the comic. Instead ask yourself if you need more information to understand that comic about biology. And if you do, add an incomplete and ask for that information ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:I've been here a long time, effectively back to when there were ''missing'' explanations (other than the "too new to have the barebones put in" ones, these days only seen when the current BOT is tardy or offline for some reason), and I've seen the Incomplete template change from the useful 'infill marker' to become a regular joke-tag of a similar nature to the Citation Needed. Yes, I agree that both of these (and the Because You're Dumb" tag) are perhaps a bit confusing for new users (like the one who badly edited out a link, just now, apparently thinking it was spam, because of the way it mentioned viagra), but I have grown to see them as community in-jokes (of various degrees of subtlety) that many people seem to appreciate under their current incarnations.
:We've recently removed the Main Page's more literal "there are # incomplete articles" announcement, which leaves the purpose of ''more accurately'' using the Incomplete tag a little less important. Apart from letting us dive into the (purported) list of Incomplete Explanations, one of the main ''serious'' purposes of the Incomplete tag is removed, leaving the now consistently employed purpose of doing a "Created by a THING OTHER THAN THE BOT" joke much more prominent.
:Really, all articles are potentially incomplete, still. Some more than others. Something big, like Hoverboard or Gravity, might truly have easter-eggs or subtle details as yet not properly commented upon, but there have been edits to ''double-digit'' comics recently which might be considered improvements. As such, there are really only two 'sensible' direct courses of action:
:#Completely remove the Incomplete tag, from use, as all pages are only ever as complete as the eye of any particular beholder, and the more recent pages are ''obviously'' incomplete by their being barely 15 minutes (or a day, or ''maybe'' a week) old. Or being so huge (or Time-like!) that they clearly still haven't been 'completely' documented. Maybe the BOT can add a Created By The Bot tag that gets wiped out by the first serious attempt at human editing, but if we wish to lose this part of our site culture so readily then why ever have it at all? A wikivote system is not really that accurate under these circumstances, for a number of reasons that I needn't explain, so go straight to assuming that any such 'vote' would pass, right from the off...
:#Embrace it for its THING OTHER THAN A BOT usage, alone. Don't be so eager to remove them just because you have no personal changes you'd wish to see. (Votes or not, there could always be another editor along in a minute who has, unlike the rest of you, picked up on an obscure visual pun rendered in what turns out to be hieroglyphs, or similar.) If we have to cull them (not a given!), then let it be an unstated rule (or a stated one?) that if there are more than (e.g.) half a dozen then the 'least amusing' may be removed by the first editor who wishes to express a critical opinion. Just the one at a time. No reinstating, no resurrection, no adding to old articles that never ever had a 'joke Incomplete' before, no entirely new joke (but you can refine what's there, to a degree), just a rolling (and not necessarily consecutive!) set of the "finest natjve explainxkcd wit". Or at least the least objectionable surviving examples of same.
:As a practical guide, the "reason why you think it is Incomplete element" could be entirely served by in-line tags (the "What?" and "Why?" and "Date?" things you might see elsewhere). Perhaps we could even do ''both'' things by instead having a "Complete" tag ''explicitly'' for BOT-REPLACEMENT-type tomfoolery (and tongue-in-cheekness about Completion, as we might currently be about Incometeness) from the off. That might confuse the newbods, of course. At least until it doesn't, and then they're not newbods anymore...
:The companion tag, for Incomplete Transcript, is presumably going to serve as it currently does (as a still serious hint as to actual Incompleteness), albeit that I've noticed a trend for the first editor of a brand new published comic to (possibly ''after'' doing the BOT-replacement joke, or after the editor who did ''only'' that) go straight in and enTranscript it (to varying degrees of accuracy and completion), whether or not they also then remove that specific tag-template at the same time. It seems that some people are more comfortable at providing a ''Transcript''ion-service than they are at establishing even the seed of an Explanation. (Or they only have enough time to do the latter, to the level of detail they wish to achieve in the moment open to them.)
:This is, of course, a cultural issue. All the above (from me) is just my own perception of practical aspects, notwithstanding those opinions already expressed before that (and elsewhere). I don't speak for everyone. And, as a perpetual IP, technically I should say that I don't speak for ''anyone'', either... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.140|172.70.160.140]] 14:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

::I like the idea of removing the Incomplete tag. What do you think? [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::I greatly approve of a {{what}} tag, as a Wikipedian that's actually really funny. I would want to keep the Incomplete tag, as I think it has purpose, even if it no longer represents a goal to achieve. I think this website will never reach 100.00% completeness and that is good, actually. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 14:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::Okay. If someone wants to they can just ignore the incomplete tags. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

== "As of <now>"... ==

What would be rather useful is an <code><nowiki>{{As of now}}</nowiki></code> template (or similar wording, and perhaps an "as of now"-cased alternative for use mid-sentence). There are many articles that will have words along the lines of "this has not yet happened, as of August 2024" or "this situation is continuing, as of August 2024". Every now and then, someone will come across one of these with an older date (perhaps only just out of date, perhaps years old) and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1858:_4th_of_July&curid=20285&diff=348082&oldid=315524 edit it accordingly]. You could also seek them all out, deliberately, with a bit of effort in the search-bar.

(Note that "as of" does not ''always'' need updating, there are non-dated examples such as in [[1074: Moon Landing#Trivia]], static transcript versions, like [[1071: Exoplanets#Transcript]] and other instances where the text "as of", with or without a date, really does not need to be changed... but sometimes is anyway by a well-meaning passer-by.)

Sometimes, this can be done along with another useful edit/update/revision that is spotted, or is just one of the revisions that some other need for change conveniently allows. But it seems a bit vague to rely upon occasional attention.  Instead the template will implement something like "<code><nowiki>As of {{Monthyear}}</nowiki></code>" (here having to use <code><nowiki>{{#time:F Y}}</nowiki></code>, ..."As of {{#time:F Y}}"...), though there's the possibility that a parameter-mediated switch can let it alternatively become a to-the-day-level format option (at which point you could even implement/calcuate something like {{template|Yesterday}} would be) or just to the year-level. (Or add {{template|As of this year}}, {{template|As of this month}} and {{template|As of this day}} separately.)

This would negate the need to ''just'' poke and prod any article that happened to 'need' updating every month (or year, or possible day). And to deal with the possibility that some of these cases might actually need to be edited because "as of" does ''not'' now apply, include within it a {{:Category:As of}} membership, letting anyone who is interested keep an eye on these aggregated 'As of's, ready to jump in there and change it to some straight up "Up until <fixed date>" equivalent should any one of them actually no longer apply.

...obviously, I can't even begin to create the template page required, but I'd be happy to work on the exact wikimedia code required if anyone thinks it needs anything but the most basic transcluded formatting and doesn't know how. Open to discussion, and I'll tag on more if I happen to see that discussion developing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 18:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:As an addendum/change to my above suggestion, considering a simpler {{template|as of}} (and {{template|As of}}) which does ''no'' automagical continuous updating (just gives the "as of" literal on its own), but still guarantees "Category:As of" membership, so that it doesn't actively give wrong (new) date+circumstance relationships in the likes of [[1047: Approximations]]. In that, the several mentions of populations can safely stay as old years until someone rewrites the proposed value and assessment as well, but it still could be a task to pursue every new year after checking the Cat for likely comics needing a quick check'n'edit.

== “Grammar Bot” ==
I’m working on a python based bot written with the Pywiki library that aims to use the replace.py scripts to fix simple grammatical mistakes, e.g. correcting Citation needed placements, cleaning up extra spaces, etc. I will be posting the code in a few weeks after I finish it (I’m a bit busy at the moment with school and orchestra) so the entire community can view it. Any thoughts on the idea? Thanks. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:First thoughts are that there are going to be so many exceptions. I definitely agree with the idea of {{template|Citation needed}}s being made consistent (if only it weren't sometimes complicated{{Citation needed}}), as well as that of    mysterious    extra       spaces. But that's not really grammatical. Punctuation, in the first case. I fear a full (or even fragmentary) grammar-checker is going to be complicated and give many false positives.
:At least at first, perhaps have it ''report'' what it thinks it has found. You may discover definite times that it isn't necessary and it would indeed create new errors.
:At the very least, run it with two checklists: One to do an automatic replace.py and one to just report. Start with the first list empty. Introduce potential ones to the latter, review all the reports carefully, ''then'' move any sensible-looking ones to former.
:And have it not fighting other bots (particularly theusafBOT), perhaps selected users (e.g. the likes of Kynde, and of course yourself) or indeed itself (if it makes a change that might inadvertently trigger another 'check') by excluding such changes for a recheck/rechange. Keep a record of what it changed, so that if anybody reverts/recorrects something that seems to have gone wrong it doesn't force it 'wrong' again. At the simplest, give a whole page a decent time-out and/or number of subsequent limits before it ''considers'' a new change. Implement from the start the option of a 'whitelist' (of pages it can ignore) or 'blacklist' (of rules it shouldn't apply, or at least actively apply, to a given page), so you can quickly manually add a throttle-down by simple config-file rather than have to add in a code-kludge when something obviously (in hindsight!) needs correcting about the way it works. And also maybe throttle it to have no more than one bot-edit per hour (while starting from scratch) to not swamp the system and give the rest of us time to assess any errors it has made (and its successes!) - you can unstick that throttle later, when you consider it tested with all its backlog of microcorrections.
:...there are a few other guidelines I would suggest, but the cautiousness already present in the above approaches might mean that they are left as not so important. Just consider what ''could'' go wrong before unleashing it on our world.
:And all power to your elbow, it is of course something we all might have considered (I know I have... not that I have the login for it, but what really stopped me was knowing how badly I could mess it up by getting just one detail wrong if I tried it).
:Among changes/alerts I would have it make would be cases of {{template|cn}}, {{template|citation needed}}, etc, instead of the 'main' template. Plus []-links to either wikipedia pages (most of them should be {{template|w}}-templated) or explainxkcd.com pages (most of them should be [[]]ed), although there are even then some exceptions. It'd also be nice if it can identify all Talk (and Community Portal) contributions that were not signed (more complex, as some may be after the fact, or have been after several years and further editings). I know how I'd do all this, or think I do (only upon starting to do it can I be sure I've actually theorised it correctly!), but I mention this mostly to point out how ''you'' might want to cautiously implement ''your'' ideas. HTH. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.15|172.70.86.15]] 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::you have made plenty of wonderful points that I clearly have not thought about-quite the critical oversight on my part. Is anyone interested in collaborating? I don’t think that my skills are good enough to satisfy all of those points. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 01:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::hello? Anybody? Please help… [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I believe this would be a great idea and also an incredibly complicated feat. Randall is no stranger to using weird punctuation in comics or misspelled words. I think it would be neat if it weren't automated and just reported errors it found so we could manually fix them, which would make its development much easier, but at that point it's very similar to a series of search queries for misspelled words, which we can already do. I have no coding skills so I'm not going to be of help. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
;Update
I have found a solution to fix most grammatical mistakes, I just need to make sure that it doesn’t correct character names like “Cueball”, not edit war with other bots, come up with a system to log the edits it makes so that it doesn’t revert again, and fix Citation needed templates. I already know how to make sure that it asks me before editing, so I want to create an account to test it out. Does anybody have ideas on what to name the bot? I don’t want to call it 42.book.addictBOT, since the username would be a bit clunky. ToriBOT could work, but I’m also open to any other names. Feel free to reply to this or reply to me on my talk page! '''[[User:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:9pt;color:#db97bf">42.book.addict</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:6pt;color:#97b6db">Talk to me!</span>]]</sup>''' 20:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== "dark mode" ==
add dark mode [[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:See [[User:Certified nqh/common.css]] or copy/paste my old [[User:42.book.addict/common.css|common.css]] page history into your common.css page: -42.book.addict [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.208|172.69.134.208]] 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::ha, thx tori, nqh's common.css works like a charm :) [[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== reddit ==
Add reddit- Anonymous {{unsigned ip|172.71.214.80|08:31, 21 November 2024}}
:You probably need to explain what you mean by that. Add reddit discussions to here? Add this site to reddit? Add some simple link to one from the other? Something else? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 13:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::>Add some simple link to one from the other?
::I have no idea what they meant either, but I hadn't thought of this! I could see the addition of a simple link to the comic template, like "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/{{PAGETITLE}" or "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/search/?q={{PAGETITLE}"
::I don't partecipate much in the r/xkcd subreddit, so i'm not sure if they have structured post titles or even if they posted all the comics, or if it's automated, but I think this could be cool! Some people will likely come from Reddit, so it would be a straightforward way for them to go back. Thoughts? {{unsigned|FaviFake|16:55, 11 January 2025}}

== viewer ==
i propose to add random page to comic viewer {{unsigned ip|172.71.150.14|00:17, 25 February 2025}}
:There's already a "Random Page" link.
:If you mean (it's ambiguous!) a "Random Comic Page" link, then I'm not sure it's needed. There are so many "Comic pages" that it's a fairly good chance that you'll land on one of them for any given click, much more chance within two clicks. The likelihood of not getting a comic within ''three'' clicks will be tiny. Another way to do it is to just use the xkcd.com "Random" button, then (whichever comic you land on, which will be any but [[404]]), change the "xkcd.com" bit of the URL to "expxkcd.com" and... you end up here.
:If none of that really does what you want (especially if you mean something completely different from what I read it as), some more explanation would probably be appreciated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 01:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:If you want to make sure to land on all comics, you can go to "Special pages" on the sidebar, scroll down to "Random page in category", and enter "All comics". As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a way to automate this, so you have to keep inputting it manually. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 06:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::I think they meant a button on the {{tl|comic}} template. Would it be technically possible to make it such that it works exacly like the one on the official site? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::It ''should'' be a matter of using [[Special:RandomInCategory/All Comics]], I think, but doesn't seem to work when I try that exact attempt. Perhaps mediawiki or the mediawiki extension is not updated enough, or else I'm getting my wikisyntax slightly wrong.
:::Functionally, though, where the website has its Random button, we have our "go to the xkcd.com original", so more thought is needed before we just "add a button". If we do, we want it where the 'mothership' website does, but we still ought to have our details-and-link-to-original given, and I like it as a (faux) button.
::: Perhaps the {{template|comic}}, where it currently has header 'buttons':
 [|<<] [Prev] [#9876 (Grune 32, 2525)] [Next] [>>|]
::: Needs to be changed to maybe:
       [ #9876 (Grune 32, 2525) ]
 [|<<] [Prev]   [Random]   [Next] [>>|]
:::...or equivalent. Haven't checked, but if it's a one-line table, can be easily made into a two-line one with colspan=3 (or 5?) in the right bit. If it's just centred, then it should come out Ok, in a simple way. But I'm not too keen on that change, really, and you'd need to actually have the Random->Comic link working first, ''anyway''. So I'm giving you my opinions and (slightly lacking) knowledge, in case that can at least make for the better outcome than either nothing (though not sure that's bad!) or some half-hearted ideas from elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.116|172.70.86.116]] 21:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::: Unless someone can figure out the requests made by the random in category, a workaround could be to use a (pseudo)random number generator (mediawiki has a [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Random_number template] on their website) to get a random number in the range of 1 - {{template|LATESTCOMIC}} and put in a link to that comic number using <nowiki>[[number]]</nowiki>.
:::: Note: There already is a "Random" template, but it was just using random page and was blanked by the person who made it [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 03:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Done|Done!!!}} &nbsp;I tried that wikimedia templaete but couldn't figure out how to make it work. I did it using Special:Random, hoping there aren't too many non-comic pages. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::thanks! (i hav an account now) [[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 22:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No problem! There's also a special custom-designed navbar for the original comics: try clicking the "|<" button! (It's not complete yet, but i'm slowly finishing it!) --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

== Misc pages ==
I would like to propose the creation of an additional category for "miscellaneous pages" that aren't really comics, and which generally have a URL slug that's an English word or phrase instead of a number. This includes xkcd.com/YES and xkcd.com/NO, both of which currently have articles. It also includes these ones: 

::''[Note by User:FaviFake: I organised this section and moved the links below]''

...and others as they are found or recovered. If only we could access the forum thread mentioned on the YES and NO pages! I was able to find a link to the thread here, but it's inaccessible. A
It's the one labeled "Hidden pages on xkcd": [https://web.archive.org/web/20170927200737/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=973b8a1dcd0a727a9177aa757108d4f6&start=250]. I was able to find the pages above via Reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/gixd96/what_are_all_the_hidden_pages_on_xkcd_that_you/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/35whzf/what/] --[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 00:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: I got into the forum page! [https://web.archive.org/web/20151206001238/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110093] We can now add these pages to the list:
[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 23:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

===Pages===
* http://xkcd.com/YES {{Done|Created: [[YES]]}}
** http://xkcd.com/NO {{Done|Created: [[NO]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/nakedpictures {{Done|Created: [[nakedpictures]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/spiral

* http://xkcd.com/burlap {{Done|Created: [[Burlap]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/simplewriter

* http://xkcd.com/tree_prank

* http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes {{Done|Existing: [[Blue Eyes]]}}
** http://xkcd.com/solution, the solution to the problem

* http://xkcd.com/morphs (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/chesscoaster

* http://xkcd.com/kite

* http://xkcd.com/dot {{Done|Created: [[dot]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/election (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/event (blank)

* http://xkcd.com/now (redirect to [[1335]])

* http://xkcd.com/plus {{Done|Created: [[plus]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/sub (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/temp (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/test (appears identical to regular site — 404 as of today)
**This appears as a 404 for me. [[User:Wobcomic|Wobcomic]] ([[User talk:Wobcomic|talk]]) 20:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
**:Same! Someone should check how it looked in the archive --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

* http://xkcd.com/time (redirect to [[1190]])

* http://xkcd.com/twitter (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/cyborg.txt

* http://xkcd.com/channel.html (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/channel.txt (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/me.txt (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/why.txt (archive only)

* http://xkcd.com/bitcoin {{Done|Existing: [[Bitcoin address]]}}
**There's also this one, which we have dissected on the page [[Bitcoin address]] (very interesting read!)

* http://holistic.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120318153220/https://holistic.xkcd.com/ archive link])

* https://aram.xkcd.com (archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120127051815/https://aram.xkcd.com)

* https://xkcd.com/verizon/ [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight]] 04:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

* http://mail.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120321204721/http://mail.xkcd.com/ archive])

* https://xkcd.com/personal
**There was a /personal folder on xkcd, but it's been entirely wiped https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://xkcd.com/personal/*

* https://xkcd.com/color/rgb/
** https://xkcd.com/color/rgb.txt

===How should we treat them?===
This is great! I think we should first create an article for each of them, and after we have a few articles then we can start to figure out a good name for the category and answer some questions, like:

*Should we add a new parameter to the template for these non-comics? To do that, we would have to ask an admin to edit the {{tl|comic}} template to allow us to do that. We can ask Kynde, no big deal.

*Some pages, like [[Blue Eyes]] and [[Bitcoin address]] are already in other categories, like [[:Category:Extra comics]] and [[:Category:Design of xkcd.com]]. Should we use the existing categories, or add a new one? How do we distinguish between, for example, [[Blue Eyes]], [[Bitcoin]], and [[YES]], which are all in theory "misc pages".

*Where should the new category be categorised?

*What title should we give for explanations of pages that don't have a name, like xkcd.com/dot? That one is just titled "xkcd.com/dot", unlike pages like Blue Eyes and [[YES]]. Would it become "dot", "Dot", something else? Should we keep it coherent or base ourselves solely on the rendered title on the official site?

I love the idea! I currently don't have time, but I will create these pages eventually. If anyone else wants to chime in, please do! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:"Unnumbered publications", or similar, could cover ''anything'' that wasn't xkcd.com/<digits>. Wouldn't cover replacements ([[2642: No One Was Hurt]] was originally 2642, for example), but that's a different class from deliberately off-series items. Also, given that often they are entirely non-image (the Yes and No), or straight text and multi-image (as per Blue Eyes, or other articles with a WhatIf-ish feel to them), I think calling them "comic"s is stretching the term.
:Though "miscellaneous pages" sort of covers this, I've a feeling that there's at least one... 'entity'... that is built upon multiple actual 'pages', but the list of candidates above doesn't contain any that look like they're what I'm vaguely thinking of. (Neither was it anything like the xkcd survey, or other interactive (numbered) comics, but maybe I'll bring it back to mind sooner rather than later.)
:As to the use of {{template|comic}}, I think we could spring to a (modified, 'inspired-by') template specifically for all these no-number/off-sequence explanation headers. Either explicit "prev=" and "next=" (per comic, ''could'' get quite mixed up if not kept uncontradictory) or a "position=" which could help maintain a list (and, from that, an auto-generated first/prev/next/last 'page ring') without having to subvert expectations of fitting in with the normal [[Template:LATESTCOMIC]] system.
:With the Comic template already equipped to deal with "no-number 'comics'", there wouldn't (in the first instance) be much work needed to "decomic" the new copy, with the exact method of resequencing (if desired) as a parallel series being the biggest question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what the last sentenc means, but I like the idea of a new template! However, I don't think we should call the category "Unnumbered publications". Isn't that just [[:Category:Extra comics]] but without comics [[Disappearing Sunday Update]] and [[No One Was Hurt]]? We should establish a criterion to add pages to this category and then figure out a name i think. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

On this subject, is there any reason why it's [[YES]] and [[NO]] (currently the valid links) rather than [[Yes]] and [[No]] / [[yes]] and [[no]] (currently invalid links)? And I don't mean "why aren't there redirects?", which I don't even think is the right way of resolving this, but what was the thinking? (Which then didn't result in [[DOT]], etc, so there's ''definitely'' some inconsistency, one way or another.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 21:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see inconsistencies. The page for yes is titled (and I mean "the name of the browser tab is") "YES" by Randall, same for NO. Instead, the page for [[dot]] is called "xkcd.com/dot/". We could use that, but that's likely not what Randall intended and might have been a coding oversight. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

== Contentious Topics Template ==

I propose that we create a unified template to slap on contentious and possibly controversial comics, with a warning similar to the one I (and a couple other people added on) wrote in [[3073: Tariffs]]. Now, since I don’t know how to create a template and don’t understand how they work, this is my request for help. If you are available to help write it or have any tips for me, please contact me either in this thread or on my [[User talk:42.book.addict|talk page]]. Thanks! '''[[User:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:9pt;color:pink">42.book.addict</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:6pt;color:#B1E4E3">Talk to me!</span>]]</sup>''' 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:Hey, I just wanted to ask why you think a new template is needed. {{tl|notice2}} and {{tl|notice}} seem pretty solid. How would a new template differ from them? Btw, I switched the template in [[Talk:3073: Tariffs]] from {{tl|notice}} to {{tl|notice2}} so it's more like a warning, feel free to revert it if you prefer {{tl|notice}}. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::I read the idea (which I'm not too enamoured with, but wouldn't argue against either) as being to create a <code><nowiki>{{contentious}}</nowiki></code>-like template in its own right that (perhaps by using {{template|notice2}} within it) had a standard "This comic, and its explanation, covers a particularly contentious subject. Take even more care than usual when adding to or editing this Explanation/Talk Page" (or similar) text with it.
::It would probably also have the ability to add further (or alternate) info, by standard template parameters, in case you want to personalise it to the ''exact''nature of the contention.
::But, my reasons why I didn't volunteer my ideas immediately are:
::*It paints targets. Anybody who wants to can look at all "pages using the Contentious template" and then troll-bomb them ''specifically''
::*Looking at the Tariffs-comic warning, that's ''huge'', and catering for that with a "standard text + additional notes" would be awkward... if you really believe it should be so huge in the first place,
::*Just by being so obviously available, there'd be creep. "Hey, this comic talks disparagingly about Newton's belief in alchemy... Surely that needs a warning too!", or start off with "Well, nobody's warning about our attitude to the US Senate in this comic, so I can be disparaging" which then practically forces another contentious-tagging (''possibly'' useful, but maybe in making a bolt for the barn door only ''after'' the horse has already made its own bolt through it) as it gets toned-down/-back again.
::And, though I also imagined the Tariff comic ''would'' get some push-back (there was some minor bits, but we seem to have kept it mature enough, IMO), it seems to be quiet. Can't say for sure it would have been without the warning it now has, but it survived ok before that was added. Hence why I'm ''meh'' about the very proposal. Hard cases make hard laws, and hard situations may prompt hard solutions. But I'm dubious about the actual case for the need. (As you say, we have 'freeform' notice+notice2, and I haven't seen proof even that was necessary as it was used.)
::But it would be trivial to implement, give or take some fine-tuning. I'll say that as a positive for the idea. Even if we never really use it as much as we could. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.83|162.158.216.83]] 20:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Maybe it's a good thing that we have to craft one for each comic we want to tag; this makes sure only actually contentious comics get tagged. An upside to having a specific template is that we wouldn't need to type <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> every time, to avoid it displaying on the transcluded talk page.--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::mm. all of these are good points. now that i think about it, copy-pasting old warnings and tweaking them as needed is probably better than creating a new template. '''[[User:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:9pt;color:pink">42.book.addict</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:42.book.addict|<span style="font-family:Cormorant Garamond;font-size:6pt;color:#B1E4E3">Talk to me!</span>]]</sup>''' 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)


== New cloudflare feature ==
[https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/1k4gozr/banished_to_the_astral_cube/ found out how to stop AI scrapers] [[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)



==Proposal for template page==
I was thinking that making a template page with instructions about what should and should not be included in which sections would make it easier for new editors to help. I have no idea how I would do this, though.[[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 11:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Which particular template? Many templates ''do'' contain instructions (from basic to rather thorough), and some common ones are also gone into in the FAQ page. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 20:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)