Talk:3069: Terror Bird

2025-03-30T23:55:04Z

172.70.46.27: Response

Oh, wow, never seen a blank explanation before! [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 02:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Jill is a pretty rare character (only 59 appearances). Cool to see a rare character.
:[[Jill]] is at 40 at the moment (41 as long as this comic is on the front page, but then back to the real 40). Not sure how you got the 59? Originally she was called Science Girl, and I'm not at all in favor of the name change... Not sure who thought that was a good idea? She is a generic girl interested in science. And in one comic she's a young adult and in one she is looking different. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

this seems to be a play on dinosaurs in media to look more accurate by having feathers, which some view as making them less scary. this comic is a reversal, where the bird is supposedly more accurate and scarier. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.28|108.162.242.28]] 04:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:hmm maybe [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 16:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
::No it is about a specific bird type from long after the dinosaurs died out, and it is mentioned both in the comic title and in the title text. Nothing to do with dinosaurs. Have also removed that category as though birds evolved from dinosaurs they are no longer that! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering there are childs show with Barney the purple dinosaur, and that's supposed to be tyrannosaurus-rex, apex predator, and is STILL not scary, making Big Bird scary is not related to what species it might be at all. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect Randall just received the latest edition of Scientific American. It summarizes recent discovery of a thick keratin sheath over the already known bony weapons in some dino species, making the nasty parts even nastier: bigger, heavier, and more resistant to damage. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.191.130|172.71.191.130]] 22:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:But this is not a dinosaur! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

'''Bird Height''' It looks like the bird is around 12 feet / 3.5 m tall (in comparison with the humans), but the Wikipedia article indicated that terror birds reached at max 10 feet / 3 meters. Is anyone eyeballing the situation differently? Is that noteworthy? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.229|172.71.182.229]] 01:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
:Jill's a child. 'Hairy' could be a non-adult Hairy (just older/taller than Jill). Have you tried instead assuming that the comic Bird is 10' high and working out if Jill/Hairy are reasonable (maybe both adolescent) sizes in comparison? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253|162.158.33.253]] 01:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
::I get the bird to be 8/3 the height of Hairy. Thus Hairy should be 1,12 m for it to be only 3 m tall. That is like a 5 year old... And Jill is considerably shorter and girls at that age it not shorter than boys, and since they are in a museum with scary animals I would assume 3-5 year old kids would not run around alone. I would agree that Hairy could represent a kid, but he is tall enough compared to Jill that he could be the adult Hairy. That would make the skeleton more than 4 m tall. There could be some issue with perspective. Maybe they are further away that the skeleton. Most likely Randall did not put too many thoughts into this and just wanted the skeleton to tower over the humans. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
::: Me again. Thanks! "'' just wanted the skeleton to tower over the humans''" just seems ... [(*)], I guess. If that were true, he may as well have shown a disproportionately large cat or cockroach or amoeba. They would be just as scary. The difference is that readers would be less likely to take it seriously with a familiar. Ah, well. Thanks! (* I removed something critical / judgemental I'd feel guilty about posting about a comic I love.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.27|172.70.46.27]] 23:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-15T20:23:18Z

172.70.46.27: Formatting

The one currently posted has Pluto highlighted in the second box and not highlighted in the first box. Too hard to tell if it's trolling or a genuine mistake. :-D

:Apparently a mistake since it's fixed now. [[User:HughNo|HughNo]] ([[User talk:HughNo|talk]]) 19:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And the first one also has a moon hilighted instead I think?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.5|162.158.126.5]] 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Was about to write the same. The coloring in the first two lines arund Pluto seem wrong (or mistankingly switched). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.246|172.71.222.246]] 16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This, this is the hill I will die on. I was radicalised by this paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 Moons Are Planets: "Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science"]
In short; planets are what planetary scientists study. Round things with the *good stuff*: atmospheres, oceans, volcanoes (of lava or water ice) (see diagram page 53).
Pluto, Titan, Ceres, Io and Europa are all in the sweet spot where you're not so small you're just a lump of rocks who happen to be stuck together into a lump, and not so large you're just a mostly undifferentiated mass of fusing hydrogen/helium plasma.
And it's consistent with our pre-20th Century understanding of what a planet is, whereas the IAU definition is trying to preserve 19th Century astrology. An amazing read and a strong recommend for anyone who cares about this subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.138|172.69.79.138]] 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this sort of count as pi-related for pi day? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:he doesn't do themed comics anymore 😔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Sure he does. [[2962]] and [[2969]] weren't too long ago. Seems like it, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.222|172.71.182.222]] 03:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was somewhat disappointed to get to the end of the table without seeing either an astrology or Sailor Moon joke. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that Uranus is marked under "Empiricist" because of the "Randall has seen Uranus" joke? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.178|172.70.42.178]] 18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The "{{w|Classical planet|Classical Planets}}" should be 7, including the Sun and the Moon.
:The average distance of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth must be slightly farther away than the orbit of the Sun around the Earth, since the Moon lags behind the Sun a little more each day, but the orbits must cross or we would never have a solar eclipse :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Regolithic one depend on the exact definitions of "dirt", "ice", and "covered"? It seems that an argument could be made that the giant planets also count there but have a much thicker atmosphere on the outside, and disqualifying because of the atmosphere could exclude others like Earth depending on the exact threshold used. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Randall not seen the sun before?
:I'm impressed that he has seen Uranus (unless that actually is a joke), especially if he saw it unaided (apparently it actually can be barely seen with the naked eye if the conditions are incredibly good). [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Could the sun be classified as a "world"? --[[User:MothWaves|MothWaves]] ([[User talk:MothWaves|talk]]) 19:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I assumed he meant "seen directly with my eyes", so that a photograph would not count, but looking through a telescope during an astronomy night at the local University would count. And he hasn't looked *closely* at the Sun, because of the need for eye protection. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, spacecraft have landed on Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn. Just not in a survivable manner. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Have we really not sent anything directly into the Sun yet? [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::The most "into the Sun" we've done is [https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/ the Parker Solar Probe], and it hasn't attempted to 'land' there (apart from that being effectively impossible, even beyond the likes of Cassini's final fall "onto" Saturn). It's also ''very hard'' to even send things into the Sun, because the direct method would need you to send a craft from Earth backwards at the same speed as the Earth orbits forwards (or very close to that), otherwise all you can do is fall ''past'' it and loop back up again. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 01:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:No one even knows if Jupiter and Saturn have a *land* to land on. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::Sstill subject to further study, but the crushed and burnt (and probably unrecognisable) remains of the probes will be 'landed' (or floating on top of any layer that they're ultimately more buoyant than) down there, somewhere (unless they're totally ablated away, but there'll probably be ''some'' fragments of hi-tech metal frame, even if no circuit boards or metal foils survive) Should there be a form of life in existence down in the depths of the gas-giant's mass, with any curiosity to them, I imagine they'll be wondering what this new variety of 'space rain' is, that's totally unlike the usual ex-asteroidal/cometish stuff that they must occasionally get punching down through from the inaccessible upper reaches above their native environment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 19:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the Pluto error in Traditionalist and Modernist images were fixed. I now see Pluto highlighted in traditionalist and Pluto unhighlighted in Modern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.91|172.68.7.91]] 19:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

indeed, it seems fine now, i removed my earlier comment--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.116|162.158.233.116]] 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

//Jean-Luc Margot wrote a serious planet definition proposal// in 2024 as a starting point for community conversations and welcomes feedback. In 2019 I wrote a small article myself on planet and moon classes simply by size. //Mondklassen "wwwahnsinn"// (in German).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.108|162.158.159.108]] 19:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm disputing that there has never been a formal definition of "planet" prior to 2006 - the ancient Greek definition of "wandering [relative to seemingly-fixed stars] points of light in the night sky" seems formal enough to me. I marked it {{tl|actual citation needed}}. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 19:52, 14 March 2025‎
: I've reworded the sentence to say "in modern times" so we aren't making unfounded and likely-incorrect claims about antiquity. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else strongly dislike the term '''natural satellite''' replacing ''moon''? Under the new nomenclature, only Earth's moon is 'the Moon'. All other moons are now merely natural satellites. Phobos, Deimos, Ganymede, are no longer considered moons. My biggest problem with the new definition is that planets themselves are natural satellites of stars. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.225|172.71.182.225]] 20:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely that the Saturnian moon highlighted in the Maritime definition is Titan, since it has liquid seas and lakes on its surface. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.5|172.69.6.5]] 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I've noted in the Transcript that (despite apparently being ''identical'' pre-highlight drawings in all other ways, or at least very consistently reproduced), Saturn is given one moon ''most'' of the time, but two moons on occasion. Similarly, Uranus's moons (spread from upper-right to lower-left) do-or-do-not include the dot (in one case suffering a highlighting) moving across the face of the planet. From an analytical perspective, I'm wondering if Randall did indeed copypaste the 'normal' iillustration, but then have to manually add in "whoops, I forgot I need to highlight a further item thaat I haven't already drawn" into some of the established copies, touching up where necessary (and maybe where still not necessary too). ...But I'm not sure it matters what he did or did not do. It's just an observation about the result. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190|172.69.79.190]] 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, Titan's present in all the diagrams, and a second moon of Saturn shows up when highlighting is necessary. The bonus "Marine Biologist" planet is clearly Enceladus, but the bonus "Judgemental" planet doesn't line up with it: presumably it's one of Saturn's other moons. Which one? My wild guess is Iapetus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.27|172.68.150.27]] 01:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you, but was it really necessary to include a snide dig at Baby Boomers? Not a BB myself - I'm gen X, if we're using those facile labels - but surely we don't need to encourage intergenerational resentment and conflict. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.116|172.68.174.116]] 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 
As a historian, I strongly disagree with the snide definition of tradition. (No, not a BB.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 07:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's a direct quote from a prior comic, that whoever wrote it in the first placce ysed, so I've rewritten it to perhaps ''not'' look quite so much like some editor's own grudge/snidiness (which it may or may not be, but not without Randall giving justifiable precedent to say it). Maybe can be tweaked further, but it might be a shame to lose the inter-comic referential humour that (regardless of tone) is staple for this site. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.109|162.158.74.109]] 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::I wrote it. No snideness intended. I thought the connection was topical. Unfortunately, thanks to the "Okay boomer" phenomenon, any reference to the generation comes across as condescending. The "Tradition" strip was published in 2011, and the phrase rose to popularity in 2019. It, like [[36]], is just one of those things that is not standing the test of time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.89|172.70.47.89]] 20:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we're currently missing part of the joke in the mouseover text. Not only is Earth now a star because of human fusion, it's also no longer a planet, because, due to human satellites and spacecraft, it no longer clears its orbit.
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.42|198.41.227.42]] 06:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the usual singular of criteria criterion? According to my dictionary, a criterium is a type of cycling race.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 09:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed. Maybe a thinko, though, rather. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 11:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I am curious why only one of the Galilean moons counts as pretty, and I wonder which one (either Ganymede or Callisto, given where its drawn). They are all pretty to me, I like how surprisingly distinct they look from one another.
[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 13:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Re title text: With the launch of the JWST, Earth has no longer cleared its orbital neighborhood, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.57|172.70.176.57]] 14:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I tend to go by an expansive definition myself, considering all dwarf planets "planets" in my eyes. But I'm not like, arguing with the IAU's definition, this is just how I prefer to think of them, because dwarf planets are really cool. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.140|172.70.126.140]] 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

== Citations ==

I added a bunch of Wikipedia citations. I went by the WP rule (citation needed) of linking the first non-parenthesized instance of a word/phrase. That does make for some awkward things, like lists with only some of the items linked, and the {{w|natural satellite|moon}} link in a mention under '''Simplistic''' rather than on the more relevant '''Lunar'''.
–[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 22:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

'''Round vs Spheroidal'''
According to the "simplistic" definition, the rings themselves (also round) are separate planets. If the simplistic definition had merely been "spheroidal" rather than "round", they would not be. I'd love to see a version of the chart where Saturn is green, but the rings are white. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.166|172.71.99.166]] 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

'''"Modern" vs "Current"'''. Does anyone feel frustrated when people confuse "modern", "contemporary", and "current"? "Modern" is post-1500, "contemporary" is the age someone lives in, and "current" is 'today'. Throughout 75 years of the modern era, Pluto 'was' considered a planet. Is anyone willing to shift non-canonical usage of "modern" to "current" in the article? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.28|172.71.95.28]] 15:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3069: Terror Bird

Talk:3063: Planet Definitions