explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3089: Modern

2025-05-19T08:25:34Z

172.70.91.29:

Hate to be that guy, but wow, it’s empty [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This strip reminded me of the comments in [[3063]]. Historians / historiographers typically define (early) "modernity" to begin around 1500. {{w|early modernity}} [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.126|172.71.182.126]] 19:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

A similar problem exists, where a recent version of the Bible is known as the New Revised Standard Version. It will be a bit awkward when it is not new, revised, or standard. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 19:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
: {{w|New_Revised_Standard_Version#NRSV_Updated_Edition_(NRSVue)|It's already happened.}} [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.167|162.158.41.167]] 06:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'm assuming it (''and'' the NRSVue) is still at least a version, though. And one, or even both, also an edition. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.139|172.68.229.139]] 08:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::Tru dat. But the NRSV can no longer be considered "new" (assuming editorial and not, say, geological, time scales) or "standard" (that title has passed to the {{w|New_International_Version|NIV}}, at least as measured by sales and by usage in English-language Protestant denominations). As for "revised", the original Standard (= King James) Bible was first published in 1611, with the "Standard" revision in 1769. The "Revised [Standard] Version" debuted in 1881. The NRSV, 1989, and the NRSVue, 2017. On this trajectory, by the end of the century, AI will be producing a new version every 30 seconds or so. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.85|172.71.147.85]] 15:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Hopefully I'm not the only one that sees NRSV and instinctively think it's an unmanned submersible of some kind. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: Not unmanned, no. Personally, it's ''{{w|seaQuest DSV|seaQuest NRSV}}''... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.198|172.70.90.198]] 17:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:The US Military has a similar problem: naming a system "Next-Gen [X]" but then the "Next Gen" item eventually becomes the current generation, and is eventually moving towards being obsolete and you need a successor (next-next gen?).[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.111|172.69.6.111]] 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::I guess the phone companies got it right with the 3G, 4G, 5G naming. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Except for that {{w|10G}} glitch. And Dilbert predicted people copyrighting "8G" years before that. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.172.75|104.23.172.75]] 20:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::There is a (not ''always'' consistent) "nth generation" classification system that is quite developed. The F-22 Raptor is a 5th Generation fighter, for example, with the (next-)next-gen ones being designed for the next decade being 6th. Though, yes, "Next Gen" still pops up (currently the programs I know of are ''mostly'' aimed at the solutions for #6, of course). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.129|141.101.99.129]] 22:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::See the Army's now-laughably-named "Command Post of the Future", which wasn't that futuristic even when it debuted in 2004. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.250.103|172.71.250.103]] 07:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there an earlier strip describing a similar problem on Wikipedia edits, maybe tied to the {{w|recency bias}}? There's the idea that every more recent slice needs a new, relevant name. It also seems to work going backwards, where humanity's genus, tribe, subfamily, and family are "homo", "hominini", "homininae", and "hominidae" respectively. We seem to crave a name for every arbitrary slice that is relevant for a particular researcher. And now I'm thinking of Futurama's "New New York". I'm surprised there's not already a New New York somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.117|162.158.233.117]] 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:Eventually, there'll be a [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/New_New_York New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New York]...
:Anyway, I actually live not far from a(nother) {{w|New York#United Kingdom|New York}}, and am also a regular visitor to (old) York. So I may not have been to New York, New York, on my travels, but I've got it covered on both sides. (I ''have'' been to both new Boston ''and'' the old one, but only been to the old Washington, both the original Richmond and its first copycat (but none of the US copycopyⁿcats), etc.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.175|162.158.216.175]] 22:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::Hmmm. I've a suspicion I know who you are.
::I'm gonna say...you ain't heavy? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, no. Sorry, I'm not aware of any fraternal relationship. Not just not with you, but not with anyone. ;) Nice to know there are potentially more of you out there, though.
:::I also forget where I think you're ''exactly'' from, from past information, but I do know that it's a different corner from me. Though I think you wisely left it vague, and I'm happy to be even vaguer (hence why I supplied multiple possibilities)... I think it's only rather specific (sort-of-)local knowledge that even let guess what more exacting info I ''think'' I know about you. West Riding, for starters, but I'm not going to narrow you down further. :p [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.134|172.70.86.134]] 22:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Ah, no, it was not a suspected fraternal connection, though I imagined that phrasing would imply it – not being heavy was something of a shibboleet.
::::And yes – had there still been a West Riding, my origin would have been within it. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::I know where you live now /j [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 00:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::...to within 3 million acres or so, sure... ...maybe! /jj [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.221|172.69.43.221]] 05:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: [[687]]. I'm surprised how often people confuse linear and areal dimensions. I think I've seen people use acres as a measure of distance twice in the last week. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 18:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: ? It's "somewhere within a nominal area of a given size", shirley? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.8|172.70.90.8]] 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: Yep. An acre of spaghetti could be 4,000 km x 1 mm. "I know where you live within an acre" could mean "I know where you live within 4,000 km." That, multiplied by 3,000,000 takes you 80 AU away, well past the Kuiper Belt. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.90.30|172.71.90.30]] 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Where do I post site suggestions?¿?¿?¿?¿ [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 04:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:What kind of suggestion? (And, for that matter, what kind of site?!?) Though I would probably start by clicking on the Community Portal link in the side navbar over <- there (and up a bit?). Might also be worth seeing if your potential suggestion already has something like it, rather than add a new section the repeats one (or more) past subheader(s). Also might help you find which sub-page suits your particular input. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.221|172.69.43.221]] 05:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember as a kid asking my parents: "Why does the New Testament look so old?". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.245.161|162.158.245.161]] 06:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: In German it makes sense, sort of - "modern" can also be a verb, meaning "to rot" :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.245.137|162.158.245.137]] 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:Some Gideon-types (maybe not ''actual'' Gideons, but of the same mind) came to my school one day (possibly they did it every year for each new age of students, never checked) and did a bit of basic god-bothering stuff with us. Either separate from the actual Religious Education class (which might have had more abrahamic=>judeo-christian=>christian=>protestant stuff, at times, but actually ''did'' properly cover other religions and wider belief systems) or as a once-only replacement for it (adjourning from the usual classroom, at its usual time, and instead meeting these 'missonaries' in one of the non-classroom rooms).
:...anyway... we were given handy-sized NTs. (Probably I still have mine, somewhere, because I rarely get rid of any book, of ''any'' kind, but I know other classmates probably were happily scattering them to the four winds as soon as the fancy took them.) My most immediate impression was the disappointment that it was ''just'' the NT. Whatever I thought about the ultimate veracity of either (not much, even at that age), I already knew that all the actual exciting stuff was in the OT. All the 'New' stuff basically boils down to "Be excellent to each other, dudes!" (as paraphrased by Bill and Ted) and a mixed bag of minor peril and miscarriage of justice. Whereas the 'Old' bits has various cities being destroyed, various multigenerational soap-opera plots and ''two'' completely different explanations for how everything began! They don't write 'em like that any more. Well, they do, but between The Book Of Mormon (the Joseph Smith one, not the Broadway one) and the various works of L. Ron Hubbard ("Mission: Earth" was even more escapist than "Battlefield Earth", and would have been even easier to badly make into a movie!) there's a ''lot'' of variation. ;)
:Though given how much might have been lost in translation, maybe I also ought to try reading everythihg in the original Klingon... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.139|172.68.229.139]] 08:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ever notice how the words modern and modem can resemble each other when presented in the correctly chosen typeface, point size and kerning? We could have had a 56k modern if we squinted sideways. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.251|172.71.30.251]] 11:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Me when the New Super Mario Bros. series is over a decade old at this point lmao. Also, not willing to delete Incase I'm wrong, but what is this bit about communism and fascism?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.13|172.69.70.13]] 12:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:I believe it's being suggested that these particular two 'different' philosophies (not necessarily, though, if one believes they just aimed for the same basic result from different directions) were developed in reaction to the more monarchical systems of government, both given impetus from the experiences of The Great War (though not just that) to create a ''different'' form of figurehead-dominated politics that was considered, by their proponents, a "modern" solution. Over time, various 'problems' were identified (not least WW2, that revealed Fascism's nature, though Communism temporarily ended up in a better position). Much of the rest of the world ended up moving on from the vestiges of 'traditional monarchy' over this time, too, but not the same way (and, arguably, with different problems - many still quite real or possibly getting worse). There are those who may think that Fascism/Communism actually could still work (perhaps if done ''properly''!), but the original eras of these are now more retro than modern so perhaps (unless you're good at rewriting history) not under those particularly poisoned names.
:Or so I understood it. Not sure I'd say it like that, or consider it an apt addition to this article, but then I'm not a professional (political-)historian and don't have the in-depth expertise to judge its accuracy in full. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.157|172.70.86.157]] 13:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Both 'isms mentioned here have roots a fair bit older than The Great War. The bundle-of-sticks-ism is possibly the oldest form of governance there is, if you define it loosely. (Please note that that is more of a condemnation than endorsement.) --DW [[Special:Contributions/172.69.74.237|172.69.74.237]] 14:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Definitely (and I nearly mentioned that Germany copied Italy's model, while Japan joined in from a still Imperial perspective). Though the pressures of fighting WW1 catalysed Russia's revolution (mid-fight) and many other systems (e.g. Italy) developed both -isms to some degree or other; both the Red Flags and the Black Shirts were plentiful enough in Britain, at times, too, interbellum, arguably held off by Churchill (along with other far more dodgy things) before he even had to deal with the next coming war. Spain became the "rehersal" for the various factions. For post-Kaiser Germany, the resulting defeat plus post-Verseilles demands fuelled drives for ''both'' forms of 'socialism' (the 'national' type ending up in total control, now on an Italy+ track such that most people often forget poor old Benito's part in inspiring it), setting up circumstances for the next bout. Not sure that such things could have been avoided, without WW1, but it definitely forced matters and shaped the 'modern' world differently from how it might have done if the First Great War had only boiled over later. (With different personalities, a few of the same original errors, probably a smattering of more advanced mil-tech or lost opportunities to have learnt from earlier (less effective) wide-area weaponry/long-range weaponry against both enemy and civilian targets - a rich vein for alternate history!)
:::But I say this only to help with 5he "what is this about...?", which I took to mean not quite knowing how (in their time) they were considered modern answers to age-old questions, only to become different (and eventually dated) problems on the way to today's (still problematic) future. The old "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" thing applies in spades, here... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.169|172.69.224.169]] 15:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: I agree that seems out of place and not pertinent to the comic itself. It is true that those and other 'isms arose because of societal upheavals associated with various [adj]modern things, but that's trivially true of... almost everything. --DW [[Special:Contributions/172.69.74.237|172.69.74.237]] 14:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::I ''guess'' that those phrases are there as a segue to explain post-modernism? But the wording is kinda janky and those 2 schools of thought may not be the best examples for this --anon [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.56|162.158.79.56]] 17:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: Yes, '''please delete the whole phrase''', "and evolved into Communism, and its counter Fascism" since that statement is altogether false. Communism and Fascism are both a form of Marxist totalitarianism. They only differ in implementation and not in ideology. Communism forbids all private ownership, while fascism allows only that private ownership that subjects itself to control by the state. Possibly, the whole section about labeling political movements unrelated to the comic since it doesn't match the categories and time periods depicted in the comic. I vote to take it all out. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 16:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:: You are ''way'' off. A one-dimensional take on social structures like yours is rarely accurate. (I agree that the whole thing needed to be deleted cause it wasn't pertinent to the explanation, though.) [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Modern just means "current". I think the text makes it seem like the fact that the name "modern" as a technical term and the normal use of the word are different meanings of the same word is just a coincidence, as if the term "modern" was extended to refer to contemporary events from its use to describe contemporary philosophy and the like. Instead, "the fault", so to say, lies with those who used the word "modern" to describe the philosophy and the like in the first place. From what I can tell, "modern" does originally mean "current" or something close to it. To use it as a descriptor for things that will not stay "modern" is the ultimate cause.
While this can be read into the current article, I think the overall feeling of the article on that issue goes in the wrong direction. [[User:Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything|Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything]] ([[User talk:Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything|talk]]) 15:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
: I disagree: The term "modern" is a modern phenomenon. The expectation that society "develops", "improves" or "progresses" in a linear way, and that whatever is "new", "novel", "innovative", etc. is likely better only emerged during modernity. Medieval Europe imagined the world as static, some cultures interpret it as circular (if you grew up thinking that progress is natural, think about how every human goes through life in a fundamentally similar way from birth to death, with each person all over again). Some think it's due to the rise of an anthropocentric world view (where you imagine that you shape the world in a significant way), some think it's due to capitalism (where the economy isn't based on maintaining life, but on maximizing the profits of those who own and invest capital). So if we still associate "modern" with "current, fashionable, chic, interesting, improved, good", that could just be a symptom that some things haven't changed much since the European 16th century. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

'''Correction of "postmodern" in the explanation:''' Postmodernism is a much more nuanced philosophical stance than "belief in progress is futile or harmful", though that's probably where you can pinpoint the transition from one era to the other best: the combined horror of the Nazis' industrial system of murder and the nuclear explosion on August 6th 1945 ended modernism. But postmodernism still believes in human development (though in a less linear, more wandering and tangled way), it's still strongly based on modern stances against aristocracy / class society / hereditary privileges, and just like modernism it certainly still tries to overcome blind faith in traditions. Anyone feeling up to writing a nice short sentence in the explanation? [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem myself. Surely once you're past 'pre-modern' you're just back to 'archaic' or something in the cycle? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.4|172.70.85.4]] 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the nGram viewer, modern peaked in 1928, continued relatively strongly until 1955, then fell off a cliff for the next four decades or so. I blame Marty McFly. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:Don't we all! -- B1FF 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

1606: Five-Day Forecast

2025-04-19T09:17:49Z

172.70.91.29: Nope.

{{comic
| number = 1606
| date = November 20, 2015
| title = Five-Day Forecast
| image = five_day_forecast.png
| titletext = You know what they say--if you don't like the weather here in the Solar System, just wait five billion years.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Weather forecasting}} is an extremely difficult task, even if it is only for five days. In numerical models, extremely small errors in initial values double roughly every five days for variables such as temperature and wind velocity. So most {{w|Meteorology#Meteorologists|meteorologists}} provide us with only a five-day forecast.

In this comic [[Randall]] takes this to the extreme by first showing a '''Five-Day Forecast''' and then progressing to five-month, year, million, billion and finally trillion-year forecasts, leading to {{tvtropes|WeirdWeather|weather patterns that we don't regularly see.}}

Since the first weather symbol is the same in all six rows, we can assume it indicates the weather today and not tomorrow, in a trillion years, etc. It is only in the second panel of each row that time has passed per the row's label. Consequently, the last column gives the predictions for four days, four months, ..., four trillion years from today.

When moving past the five-day prediction, the forecast is just a qualified guess based on the time of year. In a month it is Christmas as shown in the second panel of the second row. Then it is January and February so snow is likely, but certainly not something that happens on all days of a winter month.

Looking at the five-year forecast, guesses are made as to what the weather will be like at the same time of year. For these first three predictions the weather symbols are all of the same three types: Sun, clouds and some kind of {{w|precipitation}}, rain or snow, with the temperature ranging from 21 to 44 °F (-6.1 to 6.6 °C) - late-{{w|Autumn#Date definitions|autumn/fall}} (perhaps early-{{w|Winter#Astronomical and other calendar-based reckoning|winter}}) temperatures.

Then we go into the far future, jumping a million years from panel to panel. But still the weather symbols stay the same. In 3 million years, however, aliens (or advanced humans) attack with energy beams from {{w|flying saucers}}. They are absent a million years later, or at least not actively attacking in any visible way during this later snapshot. The temperature range remains the same across the panels except that it rises to 52 °F (11 °C), a possible reference to global warming, in one panel, and while the attack is going on it rises to 275 °F (135 °C).

Once we get to the billion-year mark it actually becomes more meaningful to try to predict the "weather", because now we reach the times when the {{w|Sun}} begins to change. Although the Sun will continue to burn hydrogen for about 5 billion years yet (while in its {{w|Sun#Main sequence|main sequence|}}), it will grow in diameter as it begins to exhaust its supply of fuel. The core will contract to increase the temperature, and the outer layer will then compensate by expanding slightly. This is what is indicated in panels two and three, where the color of the Sun changes towards red as the surface becomes cooler as it expands away from the center of the Sun. The temperature will rise on Earth as indicated in the panels (105 °F = 40.5 °C and 371 °F = 188 °C). The temperature will get hot enough in about [http://phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html a billion years] that the Earth's oceans will boil away.

Once it {{w|Sun#After core hydrogen exhaustion|no longer has enough hydrogen}}, the Sun will expand into a {{w|red giant}}. This should not happen until around {{w|Sun#Composition|five billion years from now}}, but in the forecast it is indicated to happen in only three. Maybe this is Randall taking liberties to show what happens during this phase, which would not fit into a four-billion-year forecast. Alternatively it just indicates how uncertain these kinds of forecasts are, or a statement that we may not know for certain that it will take five not three billion years, nor what toll other influences (such as attacking aliens) might take on the Sun.

In any case, the fourth panel shows the temperature at Earth's position inside the red giant Sun. The color of the panel indicates that we are inside the Sun. The temperature is 71,488,106 degrees Fahrenheit (39,715,597 degrees Celsius). The current temperature of the center of the Sun is "only" 27 million degrees Fahrenheit (15 million degrees Celsius), and although that may rise by a factor of ten during {{w|Stellar nucleosynthesis|helium fusion}}, that will only be at the very core and not out in the solar atmosphere reaching out to Earth. Here the temperature would only be of the order of thousands of degrees Fahrenheit, since the Sun's outer temperature decreases as it increases its diameter. So this panel's temperature also makes little sense by current understanding. It may involve some ambiguities regarding what the forecast means; the edge of the red giant Sun is predicted to be somewhere near the current orbit of Earth, but the position of the Earth could change. The most likely prediction at the moment is for Earth to move outward but, if the planet is engulfed by the Sun, it would spiral inward, and at some point fall apart. So in some sense "here" for the forecast could become a position deep inside the Sun, where core temperatures could reach 100 million Kelvin. The temperatures shown are unreasonably precise; they probably should have only two or at most three significant figures, if not for the running theme of escalating levels of prescience (enough to predict a future attack by flying saucers, etc).

The red giant phase lasts only half a million years, so a billion years after the Sun has been a red giant its outer atmosphere will definitely have disappeared, leaving only a dim, cool {{w|white dwarf}} to cool down. Given Randall's version of this time schedule, then it will have had about a billion years to cool down, but would still likely be the brightest object in the sky as seen from where the Earth once was. It is not shown in the last panel, where we just see other stars of the Galaxy. The temperature is down to that of the {{w|Cosmic microwave background|background radiation}}. Today this radiation has a temperature of 2.72548 kelvin = -270.4245 °C = -454.7641 °F. That is a few degrees F colder than what is shown in the comic, which states the temperature is -452 °F = 4.26 kelvin. This higher temperature may have been chosen to reflect that even the light from other stars would increase the actual temperature.

In the last panel with trillions of years, we jump right past the Sun's red giant phase to a panel looking much like the one after five billion years with only other stars, one of the original stars being no longer visible. Over the next three trillion years the stars become fewer and dimmer as they run out of fuel, while fewer new ones form to continue the cycles of star-formation. After four trillion years the background temperature decreases one degree to -453 °F as the universe keeps expanding and the wavelength of the radiation does the same, thus decreasing its temperature.

The title text is a play on comments referring to fast-changing weather on a more ordinary human timescale, such as Mark Twain's quip, "If you don't like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes."

A ten-day forecast was used in [[1245: 10-Day Forecast]]. In [[1379: 4.5 Degrees]], Randall looked at the weather over long periods of time as well. in [[1643: Degrees]] he addressed Celsius vs. Fahrenheit for measuring temperature.

===Image using Celsius===

There is a different user-made version for the picture, using [[3001|Celsius]] instead of Fahrenheit, [[:File:five_day_forecast_Celsius.png|in this image link]]. (For a version that also uses Kelvin, [[:File:five_day_forecast_Celsius+Kelvin.png|click here]].)

==Transcript==
:[A grid with six rows of five columns, where each row is labeled to the left. For each of the 30 squares a temperature is given in Fahrenheit at the top left. The rest of the square represents the weather as in a weather forecast (or some other relevant items for the comic), mainly in bright colors. Below are the six labels given above each of their five weather symbols with temperature given below these symbols description.]

:'''Your 5-day forecast'''
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:38°F
:[A grey cloud.]
:41°F
:[A grey cloud with six lines of blue raindrops below.]
:36°F
:[A grey cloud in front of a yellow sun.]
:40°F
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:44°F

:'''Your 5-month forecast'''
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:38°F
:[A green Christmas tree with red presents beneath it.]
:29°F
:[A grey cloud with four snowflakes below.]
:21°F
:[A grey cloud with four snowflakes below.]
:24°F
:[A grey cloud.]
:35°F

:'''Your 5-year forecast'''
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:38°F
:[A grey cloud.]
:25°F
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:36°F
:[A grey cloud with six lines of blue raindrops below.]
:37°F
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:41°F

:'''Your 5-million-year forecast'''
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:38°F
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:52°F
:[A grey cloud.]
:40°F
:[Two red flying saucers (with bright domes) are shooting energy beams downwards. One of the beams seems to impact with something at the bottom of the panel, which then explodes. Two plumes of smoke rises up from below, drifting to the right.]
:275°F
:[A grey cloud in front of a yellow sun.]
:40°F

:'''Your 5-billion-year forecast'''
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:38°F
:[A larger orange sun.]
:105°F
:[A very large red sun.]
:371°F
:[A pale yellow panel with no drawing.]
:71,488,106°F
:[A night sky with many bright stars.]
:-452°F

:'''Your 5-trillion-year forecast'''
:[A bright yellow sun.]
:38°F
:[A night sky with many bright stars.]
:-452°F
:[A night sky with many stars.]
:-452°F
:[A night sky with fewer not so bright stars.]
:-452°F
:[A night sky with few dim stars.]
:-453°F

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Weather]]
[[Category:Aliens]]
[[Category:Christmas]]

Talk:3066: Cosmic Distance Calibration

2025-03-22T10:15:12Z

172.70.91.29: Unexplainable comics

yay. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What makes such labels as real objects absurd is not the required size, but the required orientation to be readable from a single point in the universe - earth. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 19:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:All facing towards us AND all the right way up! That's geographically unlikely. ;-) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.157|172.71.178.157]] 10:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

A straightforward application of the Anthropic principle. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.187.189|104.23.187.189]] 19:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the title text... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.162|162.158.62.162]] 20:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I like this part of the linked article: ''But cosmologists get only one universe to observe.'' -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that the crosshairs in question are markers to indicate which star is being labeled, not anything to do with video games. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.137.59|162.158.137.59]] 23:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's my suspicion as well: just markers like the labels, not diffraction spikes or anything like that. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The crosshairs are all the same size because new red giant stars are all the same brightness. They are "TRGB" or "Tip of the Red Giant Branch" standard candles. Every star in that phase of evolution is exactly the same absolute brightness, so we can tell how far away it is by measuring the observed luminosity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 00:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

[[2035: Dark Matter Candidates]] also hypothesizes that astronomical labels are physically there, the orbit paths in this case. Should it be added? [[User:Intara|Intara]] ([[User talk:Intara|talk]]) 00:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

OH MY GOD! Why are there two blue boxes saying we need to complete 58 explanations? I would suggest that just one would be less distracting/disruptive. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.70|172.68.2.70]] 03:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

: Perhaps one box wasn't enough... although it seems reasonable to have an increasing number of cartoons that nobody felt able to explain. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.29|172.70.91.29]] 10:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the crosshairs: TBH, I don't think the comic refers to diffraction patterns/spikes. I think it simply refers to literal crosshairs, as in "some stars are marked with crosshairs in this image and the astronomers think those crosshairs are some kind of real, physical phenomena". See the comic itself for an example of such a crosshair (the zoomed star has one!). --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.138|172.68.7.138]] 05:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
: After noticing that other comments in this discussion page mentioned the same as I did, I took the liberty to update the text. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.34|172.68.12.34]] 05:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Comics featuring Little Bobby Tables

2025-02-11T18:03:23Z

172.70.91.29: Makes more puncuating sense…

<noinclude>:''For the character's explanation, see [[Little Bobby Tables]].''</noinclude>

These are all the comics that feature or mention Little Bobby Tables:

{{navbox-characters}}
[[Category:Comics featuring minor characters|Little Bobby Tables]]

Talk:3046: Stromatolites

2025-02-05T10:27:18Z

172.70.91.29:

Yay, another Beret Guy appearance! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm trying to remember Bloom County and the penguin (Opus) or Snoopy by Schulz because of the last panel. Shrug. Prolly both. Warm is good. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.208|172.70.175.208]] 06:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:Add Zonker to this list? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.39|108.162.245.39]] 17:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:: Zonker Harris, yes! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.106|172.70.175.106]] 18:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

How can anybody be related to rock formations? Stomatolites are not organisms, they are the product of organisms. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.88|141.101.105.88]] 08:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:This might be one of Randall's weaker offerings in terms of scientific accuracy. I think that "stromatolites" as here used refers to the cyanobacterial component of stromatolites, which is the component detected in ancient fossils and is the one responsible for oxygen-evolving photosynthesis (responsible for what was perhaps the {{w|Great_Oxidation_Event|first global environmental catastrophe}} - an element of ancestry of which it might be wise not to boast). Modern stromatolites have both cyanobacteria (ancestors of plastids) and alpha-proteobacteria (ancestors of mitochondria) in their microbial mats, and it's reasonable to assume that alpha-proteobacteria were present in the fossils. So the "cousins" would be of cyanobacteria in the stromatolites, not the stromatolites themselves (in which both were, presumably, cohabiting). Beret Guy also appears to be confused about the proposed sequence of events leading to the origins of mitochondria and eukaryotic cell nuclei. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.39|108.162.245.39]] 17:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:I've seen the surviving microbial mats in Australia referred to as "stromatolites" as well.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if he is related to any specific dinosaurs or whether he bypassed that branch of the tree completely. 09:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a joke (or at least a reference) here about the relatedness of life. All currently-known organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor, which in English makes us all cousins, of various distances. Mitochondria in plants and animals, for instance, must descend from the same bacterium-like organism that became an endosymbiont in a proto-eukaryote.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:Since mitochondria and chloroplasts were both originally distinct organisms that were absorbed into the host cells, that makes most modern life descendants of cannibals. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::By that logic, eating pretty much any food except salt (and maybe dairy?) is cannibalism. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.87|172.68.70.87]] 16:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I immediately thought of [https://fabpedigree.com/ Fabulous Pedigree], which ''does'' include ancestry (and side-branches) going back to (and past) mitochondria, though from a quick check it doesn't seem to specifically include stromatolites. Obviously the listing has lots of (mostly implied) gaps. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.217.72|162.158.217.72]] 13:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Beret Guy is emulating Pooh-Bah in The Mikado: "I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule."[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.190|172.69.33.190]] 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)NickM

I've added a bit about the length of time it would need to take to click that far back in the past. I'm sure I have got the amount out by several orders of magnitude, so I would appreciate it if anyone fancies a go at estimating how long Beret Guy would have taken. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.27|172.71.241.27]] 10:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
: [[2608: Family Reunion]] estimates about 50 billion generations to the MRCA with plants; this would have taken about a century at a speed of 15 clicks per second. Bacteria reproduce extremely fast - or at least modern ones do - which could easily add a few trillion generations (and a few thousand years of clicking) on the bacterial side of the ancestry. In other words, "thousands of years" is likely an overestimate but not ''that'' much of one. (Obviously the time becomes very feasible if Beret Guy used a site that summarized the ancestry.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.134|162.158.111.134]] 20:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::Typically the way it works is you work back so far and then find a connection to a ''pre-existing'' tree, so he wouldn't need to go very far back to get to a tree that covered all modern humans, provided someone had already done the work beyond that point before him.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.29|172.70.91.29]] 10:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

== The [[What If? chapters|What If? article index]] project ==

Hey everyone,

I'm not sure if you noticed the banner of the site, but for the last few weeks a group of [[Talk:What If? chapters|incredibly talented editors]] have been redesigning the [[What If? chapters|'''index of ''What If?'' articles''']] from the ground up. Among other things, we've merged two huge tables, added a TON of additional info, created complex templates, and made [[What If? chapters|dozens and dozens of other improvements]]. I believe that, as a wiki, we should have a complete and detailed index of all what if? articles, [[List of all comics (full)|just like we do for the comics]], and we're getting so close to that goal! We mostly only need to add the missing explanations, improve the existing ones, and add the questions and answer summary from the books (plus other things).

We would love your help (especially if you have the first book)! We've prepared a [[What If? chapters|to-do list]] at the top of the page, containing everything that needs to be done, if you're interested. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

User talk:FaviFake

2025-01-26T00:04:12Z

172.70.91.29: /* Sorting "Chapter xx.." */ ...seem to have missed words out.

=The huge what if? index=
{{notice|<big><big><big>COORDINATION FOR WHAT IF? (Pinned to top of page for now)</big></big></big>}}
==Introduction==
Hey! This is intended to be a space to coordinate the merging of the two tables. I see that [[User:1234231587678]] and [[User:Apollo11]] have been helping us create the two tables! I'm messaging you to coordinate a little bit. Since we're the 3 most active editors, let's coordinate!

My idea for the table was the following: there would be one single sortable table instead of two, and the information density would be very high. There were the columns I had in mind:

* N

* Date (the date YYYY-MM-DD, and then includes week after prev. article)

* Thumbnail

* Title (hyperlinked)

* Reader's question

* Randall's answer

* Book - in something like this format: '''WI?2, n. 40''' (BOOK1,2,3, nr. ARTICLE NUMBER), which is easily sortable by book - for unnumbered, use the assumed number with an asterisk like this: 69* - this column would also be color coded, by book - this would also contain the title in the book if different - empty when not in any book

* YT (the date YYYY-MM-DD, and then a hyperlinked link with the YT title. if the title is the same, don't repeat it) empty when not on YT

----

I realise my mistake was listing the things we had to do together with the huge task, merging the tables! So what happened is you both contributed, but each of you contribued to a different table. In an attempt to solve this, i have created my own table, which is ready to receive the two additional columns!

'''I believe this third table (available at [[User:FaviFake]]) is the best option for us to work on the index together, so that once it has the 2 additional columns and contains all the articles, we can put it on the blog page and delete the [[What If? chapters]] table. What do you think?'''

I have also made other adjustments:

*Made the Date column nowrap, so the date doesn't wrap around, and made the first column (N) centered and '''bold'''

*Turned each Reader's question cell italic, and added quotation marks to the start and end of each cell. Ex: HOW OLD? becomes ''"HOW OLD?"''

* In the Randall's answer column, split the rows into one per question. For example, if there are 5 bullet points in 1 cell, split the "Reader's question" and the "Randall's answer" columns into 5 rows for that particular Article so that each question has its own mini-row.

*Added file link to all rows so you can just click to go straight to the upload file page.

*<s>'''Downgrade''': titles aren't hyperlinked</s> - {{Done}} Update: I manually hyperlinked all of them!
'''
*'''Downgrade''': the last ~100 articles are missing. I'll try to add them the day after tomorrow! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Regarding the additional 2 columns: I've been thinking a lot about how we should do them. I see 4 options:

:*'''Option 1: Separate Tables''' - separate tables for the YouTube video information and book information, and link articles across tables using the "N" column (or another unique identifier like the title). Advantages: Keeps sorting straightforward in each table. Maintains the integrity of your original table while allowing for sorting by videos and books in their respective tables. Flexible for adding future metadata. Disadvantages: Requires users to cross-reference between tables, which can be inconvenient.

:*'''Option 2: Expand Rows with Sub-Rows''' - How it works: For each article, add one or two additional sub-rows (One for YouTube video information (e.g., YT video number, link, title, thumbnail), and one for book information (e.g., book number, article number, title, color-coded cell). Advantages: Keeps all information together, visually grouped by article. Makes it easy to see all data without leaving the main table. Disadvantages: Sub-rows might disrupt column sorting. Could make the table visually cluttered for articles with both video and book.

:*'''Option 3: Additional Columns''' - new columns for: (FIRST COLUMN) YouTube video number, link, title, and thumbnail, and, (SECOND COLUMN) Book name, article number, title, and color-coding. Advantages: Sorting by videos or books is easy. Keeps all information in a single row. Disadvantages: The table becomes much wider, which can reduce readability on smaller screens. Many empty cells for articles without video or book.

:I've also thought about using a template. What do you think of the idea of a creating a template like these:

{{Done}} UPDATE: i did create the templates! See the top of [[User:FaviFake]]! <s>

<nowiki>{{yt|YTNUMBER (1, 2, 3, etc)|YTLINK|VIDEOTITLE (optional)}}</nowiki>

:It would be used in the column that we still need to create. It would also colour the cell in '''red'''. I was also thinking of doing a similar thing for the What If? books:

<nowiki>{{bk|WHICH-BOOK|CHAPTER-NUMBER|CHAPTER-TITLE (if different)}}</nowiki>

:For example, it would look like this (This one would also colour the cell based on the book, e.g., green for WI?1, yellow for WI?2, blue for WI10th ed.):

<nowiki>{{book|2|69|Jellyfish}}</nowiki>

What If? 2, chapter '''69: Jellyfish'''

:Would someone be able to create something like this? I know nothing about templates, and i doubt I'll be able to ask chatgpt to do everything for me correctly. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)<s>
</s>
==1234231587678==
::I saw your message, and this would be a good idea to coordinate. Maybe also add the missing "Peptides" that was accidentally released on the blog, as index 153 (i think) or have two articles with the same index number, just putting "current" for the current article. --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::Also I think the "0w later" or "1w later" on the comics looks a bit odd, maybe remove them entirely? The dates are already present. --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for replying! I LOVE the idea of inserting the Peptides article directly in the index. It would technically make it a little less official, but I'm all for it. It looks and feels like a proper article.

:::I also fully agree with you regarding the '''1w later''' line! I do like the idea of seeing the frequency right from the index, but it's too much right now. My idea is to remove the "1w later" part, but leave it in for the articles that aren't released a week after the previous one. For example, this would keep the '''2w later''' and '''0w later''' lines for the articles that have them, but declutter the date cells of the "normal" ones. What do you think?

:::I can't do it right now, but it should be easy. We can also delay it until all articles are on the table, so we only have to do it once. Btw, I hope to get all the articles on the table by the day after tomorrow or the day after that. Meanwhile, you or other editors can add the 2 columns (Book and YT)! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I currently don't have the books, so can't help with that, but I've added a few YT videos. Also the book template seems to be buggy (and/or a WIP), so I removed it from the 1st article. ALSO, the YT template display {5}th instead of 5th; weird. --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 15:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you so much! I fixed the YT template, let me know if there are any other issues. Also, you '''can''' help with books, even if you don't have them! All you need to do is look at the page [[What If? chapters]], which catalogues every chapter of every book. The <s>[[Template:book]]</s> i was trying to create is broken because I gave up trying to make it work (1h and 20min of my life wasted). Anyways, we now have 4 different templates, one for each book (the fourth is a placeholder!): [[Template:book1]], [[Template:book2]], [[Template:book3]], [[Template:book4]]. There are instructions on hot to use them on their page. Please continue adding the videos and the books if you can! This is exactly what we need! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

==Apollo11==
This a big page so I’m not sure I’m in the right spot (also typing one handed so sorry for mistakes). I like the table on you page, however I did notice it’s missing which book it’s in and the YouTube channel. I love how the one I edited was formatted, I think if you added that table to your existing table it’d be perfect. I would also add a page number for the books. [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok just saw the three options. I’d go with either 1 or 3. 1 would look the best and probably be easiest to find what you’re looking for as long as your have links to the other tables very clear. What I would do is have a table with title, and where to find the article (blog, book 1, book 2, YouTube). Then have a 4 tables, one for each, where you can go more in depth about each article, date, explanation, jokes, things like that. Option 3 would be the simplest, and if that’s what you wanna do, I’d have the simplest things on the left and the more complicated things on the right. So the date and title would be in the left and the e explanation would be far to the right. You’ve probably been thinking about this a lot longer than me so I’m probably missing something, so please tell me if I’m wrong abo it anything. Also if my comment is in the wrong spot feel free to move me to the right conversation. I’d love to help in anyway!! Just give me directions and I’ll do by best!! [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 16:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

: Thanks so much for your interest! I thought about it a lot today, and i landed on 1, huge, information-laden table. I think having 3 or 4 tables would be too confusing and too hard to navigate. Plus, i think i found a good way to avoid making the table too wide. I added a few articles to showcase it. I don't have a lot of time to do all of them. Regarding the page number, I used the chapter number since it's easier for people who don't own the books.

: > I’d love to help in anyway!! Just give me directions and I’ll do by best!!
: Love it! You can do everything that's listed at the top of [[User:FaviFake]], but the first one might be more annoying to do on a phone (I'm not sure where you're editing from, actually). If you don't understand something on that page, please do let me know. I promise i'll answer quicker next time. ;) --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Looks great!! I’ll get on it sometime early next week!! (Ftr I’m usually on a phone but sometimes I’ll go over to a computer for bigger projects, like added links and full researched paragraphs) [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 20:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::: Amazing! I hope I'll have added all the missing articles by the day after tomorrow. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

==Adding the book-exclusive articles==
I noticed that there’s not a column for if the article is in the blog. I also don't think some of the ones in the book that aren’t on the blog are in there. Please correct me if I’m wrong. [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 18:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I’ve noticed that some of the What If? Chapters aren’t in the table. I think that we should add them in too '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you all for pointing it out! And again sorry it took me so long, I'm not good at prioritising. (but at least today i did something! I fixed both the YouTube template, there are new instructions on [[User:FaviFake]], and the book templates when used in merged cells. Anyways!)
::I had forgotten the other table also contained the book-exclusive questions! Of course we should add them! We need to think about this before doing anything though. I have so many questions!

*In what order do we put them? Unfortunately, the chapter of the book are mixed between non-excusive and exclusive.
*Do we need all the columns?
N Date Thumbnail Title Reader's question Randall's answer Books YouTube
**What happens to the unnecessary columns? We could merge them, but I'm not sure whether the sorting will work if we merge them.
*Should we change the columns, so that the '''blog number''' column is more similar to the '''Book''' and '''YouTube''' columns? Or are blog articles more important because they fill all the cells, while book-exclusives don't have all the same info?
*Is there ANY way you can think of to make the insertion of these articles into the existing index seamless? I'm usually on the side of one big index instead of many little indexes, but I'm having a hard time figuring this out. One of the main reasons I wanted to do this project was so that people wouldn't need to move between 2 different tables to see all articles.

::One way could be to just add all book-exclusive articles, each in their own row, in a big dump on the release date of the book. Even tho it would technically be in chronological order, i don't really like the idea. Please send all your thought! There must me something I'm not thinking of, or something I've been thinking wrong about! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

----

::* What order do we put them in
:: I would do it in the same order as the other table, blog articles first in chronological, what if chapters in chapter order. I believe the YouTube channel is all old questions, but if he posts a new one, then put that below the books.
::* change blog columns
::I think you should move the blog date and number to after randalls answer, similar to the books, and for the date for book exclusives maybe jus the book release date? Or NA.
::* unessery colums
:: Example?
::* Seamless integration
::Just stick them on the bottom, the exact same way you’d put another blog article on the bottom.
::I think that covers it all? [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 19:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Sticking the chapters at the end was the same idea I had, and I think that we can just put (What If? Exclusive) inside the date part of the table. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for replying so quickly! I don't have time right now to read everything but I can already tell that this is much easier than I thought it would be. I'll answer tomorrow. Before i start overthinking everything: What would you put inside the columns thumbnail, Question, and Answer? Just empty? I'm trying to think of something useful.
::::Also, what do you think of merging the N (blog) column and the Date columns, just like we do with the YouTube column? Would there be any downsides?
:::: I hope I'm not preventing it edits by not adding the articles quickly, in the meantime you can help by adding YT videos, now that the template works! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::: I think that the YT videos are all added? At least the blog ones and not the What If? exclusive ones. Or maybe Restricted Mode on my home wifi is blocking some. But I think that it’s all done? Tried my best anyways '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is great news, thanks! I didn't know there were YouTube videos on book-exclusive articles! I'll get started, this is my plan:
::::::*The book articles are positioned like the old [[What If? chapters]] table.
::::::*New column setup:
Thumbnail Title Reader's question Randall's answer '''Blog (this contains both N and Date)''' Books YouTube
::::::*The sometimes-unnecessary columns are left empty.
::::::*The '''Blog''' column is more similar to the '''Book''' and '''YouTube''' columns: it has a template and colors the cell light blue.

::::::I feel great about this! We're getting near the finish line. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think that I added all the What If? And What If? 2 chapters to the table for the ones that were copied from the blog '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 23:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Love it! I hope i'll be able to add some of the missing articles today, but i might not be able to do them all (or any at all). --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{Done}} I did it! You can now add the missing YT videos :) {{unsigned|FaviFake|20:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::::::Doing it now! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::based on the 20 videos that I can see on the YT channel, ALL YT VIDEOS HAVE BEEN ADDED! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::We actually did it! Now all that's left are the explanations, which i'm sure people will prefer doing over merging 2 wikipedia tables. There's just one small problem: I searched for "Featured in What If?," and instead of 69 results, i got 67. This means two of the articles that are both in the book and in the blog haven't been added. Do you think you could figure out which ones? I also checked the other book and the YouTube videos, and they're all there, it's just the first book. Again, thank you so much for all your work, it would've likely taken weeks to get to this point without your efforts! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 11:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::ok, i’ll poke around and see if i can find them. also, I GOT WHAT IF? 10TH ANNIVERSARY! i can add the bonus chapter that is at the end-it’s basically “what if we tried more power” when blasting away at the moon with lasers. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

----

{{notice|<big>'''If you're here for the '''what if?''' index, [[#The huge what if? index|see above]]'''}}

{{TOC}}

<big><big><big><big>Hey there, feel free to '''[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:FaviFake&action=edit&section=new send me a message]''' :)</big></big></big></big>

== Objects table ==
Thanks for replying. The current table in the main text looks good, but still it is a ''description'' or just ''enumeration'' of game objects, not an ''explanation'' (or in some cases: partly an explanation). Supposing we keep the current structure, it is possible to add explanations for the planet names in the '''Explanation''' column. For example, first sentence of the second paragraph is a good ''explanation'' for the Uzumaki planet's name. On the other hand, Andal has only a ''description'' (what it looks like and what features are present on the surface) and no ''explanation'' (that it refers to Animorphs series of books). There's also a question where one should put explanations of items and messages. Some do not need an explanation ('You found a stick'), but most do: what they mean and what they refer to, both in xkcd context (such as when there's a comic about the thing) and in general context. I hope you understand the difference between ''description'' and ''explanation''. Maybe there's also some misunderstanding resulting from a language barrier; English is not my native language.

What is also missing in the table are many structures or objects found on the planets and, most importantly, dialogues or monologous of the characters, which contain many puns and references, and also hints for the player. There's simply no place for them in the current structure. Making more columns may be messsy. That's why I proposed making several tables covering different aspects.

Please take my remarks as proposals to improve the structure and not as a criticism or request for you to make everything right and fill every cell of the table. I think we need to create a clear structure for everyone else to fill in with details; but also to provide good examples to follow.

Technical remarks:
* In my opinion, the filename column is not needed, it does not appear anywhere while playing, it's in source code only. Better remove it to have more horizontal space for the rest. The names given to the planets by the editors of the explanation page shown in the Description column are fine.
* Coordinates are also not useful for a regular player, who does not use some Javascript addition/cheats, maybe remove it as well; textual directions in '''Explanation''' column are sufficient.

-- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:> Thanks for replying. The current table in the main text looks good, but still it is a ''description'' or just ''enumeration'' of game objects, not an ''explanation'' (or in some cases: partly an explanation). Supposing we keep the current structure, it is possible to add explanations for the planet names in the '''Explanation''' column. For example, first sentence of the second paragraph is a good ''explanation'' for the Uzumaki planet's name. On the other hand, Andal has only a ''description'' (what it looks like and what features are present on the surface) and no ''explanation'' (that it refers to Animorphs series of books).
:Hey! Yeah, that's the state of the table ''right now'', and I 100% percent agree with everything you're saying here. All planets and items that need an explanation should be explained and not just described. I mostly just copied and pasted the "planet description/explanations" from the old list to the table: creating the table was way more painful than i thought. I was actually surprized to see that nobody explained what Andal referred to, but I don't know anything about it so more knowledgeable people will have to chip in on that

:>There's also a question where one should put explanations of items and messages. Some do not need an explanation ('You found a stick'), but most do: what they mean and what they refer to, both in xkcd context (such as when there's a comic about the thing) and in general context. I hope you understand the difference between ''description'' and ''explanation''.
:I do! And I wish other people could help here. I'm not sure if you've seen it, but this is the banner i put above the table:
----
'''ALL ITEM EXPLANATIONS NEED TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE OLD PLANET LIST TO THE NEW TABLE''' 
We are currently switching from a disorganized list (below, inside the green banner) to the new organized table, but the explanations for specific items are missing from the new table. Please help by copying the item explanations from the old list and adding them to the new table ''in this format:'' 
<code>The item message &ndash; <nowiki>''Where to find it &ndash; Explanation, such as references etc''</nowiki></code> 
Example: You found a cheese platter (Your tanks recharge faster) – ''Next to the cell tower – The cheese is a reference to [https://example.com 1234: Cheese]''
----
'''OTHER ISSUES:'''
* upgrades that end in "???" need to be replaced by the exact upgrade message shown to the user.
* the "Tiles (X, Y)" column for planet coordinates is empty

:As you can see, the explanations should be put right next to the items and messages. Unfortunately no one has started to add them to the table yet

:> Maybe there's also some misunderstanding resulting from a language barrier; English is not my native language.
:Your English is excellent :)

:> dialogues or monologous of the characters, which contain many puns and references, and also hints for the player. There's simply no place for them in the current structure. Making more columns may be messsy. That's why I proposed making several tables covering different aspects.
Almost all the dialogues are on the [[2765: Escape Speed/Transcript]] page, so I guess they should be added there. I don't know if they're already here, I haven't looked at it enough
:: The transcript is not the place for explanations. Puns and references shall be explained elsewhere. I continue working on the transcript but there's still quite a way to go. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 5 May 2023

:> Please take my remarks as proposals to improve the structure and not as a criticism or request for you to make everything right and fill every cell of the table. I think we need to create a clear structure for everyone else to fill in with details; but also to provide good examples to follow.
:Yeah; i totally get everything you said. In my last reply I think I was a bit too rude for some reason, maybe it's because I just finished the table and was tired.

:>* In my opinion, the filename column is not needed, it does not appear anywhere while playing, it's in source code only. Better remove it to have more horizontal space for the rest. The names given to the planets by the editors of the explanation page shown in the Description column are fine.
:* Coordinates are also not useful for a regular player, who does not use some Javascript addition/cheats, maybe remove it as well; textual directions in '''Explanation''' column are sufficient.
I was heavily inspired by the table in the [[2712: Gravity]] explanation, which included these. I kind of agree that the filename could be removed, and the filenames could be added to the planet name or explanation, i didn't think about that. About the tiles, someone might use them someday, but if the column keeps remaining empty, i don't mind seeing it disappear

:I really liked your ideas, if you don't mind I'll copy and paste this discussion in the actual comic discussion page and see what others think --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

::Update: I found a way and added all the coordinates, and moved the planet filenames to the Planet Name column to make more space for the other columns :)

::: Hi, what about dividing planets and objects like in [[User:Malgond/Drafts/Escape_Speed|my experiment]]? There's plenty of horizontal space for explanations and the entries are quite compact vertically. I also think about color-coding the different Types of game objects. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 5 May 2023

::::Hmm, I think it looks a little messy and maybe too complicated. Do any other comics have two different tables? Also, I'm personally not a fan of mixing items, landscapes, and people. I think most people reading the table are there to get an overview of the planets and what they contain. Do we really have to explain everything in such detail? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::We do not have to follow other explanations too closely, we could use a new form if it seems clearer and better. The current form has no place neither for explaining items nor for dialogues/monologues. More columns could be problematic (specifically in today's world of high and narrow screens of smartphones). Should we explain everything? Well, it us up to collective "us". Personally, I would like someone explain a few puns/dialogues I do not understand.
:::::For now, there's only a handful of people still interested in somehow finishing the explanation for this huge comic. Maybe if we two can agree on some format we could put it in discussion page and ask for votes. (Discussion needs a cleanup, BTW). -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 22:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Hey, I'm back. I see you're enhancing your example table, and iI was wondering, do you plan to move your edits to the actual article after you're done and use the test to see how the formatting looks? Isn't it easier to just add them to the main page directly? Just wondering. If you want I can help you port them over :)
:::::Keeping the contents of the table on your talk page and then porting them over afterwards could lead to a loss of information added after you started editing your user page [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::I'm back too. Yes, I intend to put it in the main article, but I am a bit shy to replace a lot of your work; I've asked for opinions in the talk page. Let's see how it sorts out. Maybe someone has a still better idea. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 21:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::Oh. I think the structure of the current table in the article is better than the one you've been working on: for example, it's easier to sort for items, is more compact, and is just one. Why don't you just add a "transcript" column like the table on [[2712: Gravity]] to put what things and people say, and add the rest of the information on the respective columns? Personally, I think you're making it a little bit too complicated. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

== Haltones ==

"They're not **predominantly** gray, the two main colors are just white and black. Sometimes he uses the gray color just like when he uses any other color" ... It didn't say that they were predominantly grey(/'gray'), any more than it said that they'd be predominently black (as [[:Category:Comics with inverted brightness]], often, in preference to white). The point being that even the most "black and white" images aren't monochrome, but have degrees of grey at the boundaries, with smoothly antialiased boundaries between the full black of the line (or filled area) and the full white of the background (or inverted detail). You'll see this if you zoom in, with your favourite image editor. And very often in images with a default RGB colourspace, even if the effective pallette employed covers just greyscale values. But greys actually do feature a lot, too (often the first choice of non-black-and-white, for slight lessening of prominence, as opposed to 'red pen' ''increased'' visibility). So it's technically inaccurate to describe them as pretty much monochrome. But how to convey this in <...counts...> less than 157ish words? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.173|172.71.242.173]] 16:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:The wiki page says
::::"xkcd comics are usually plain, predominantly black-and-white line drawings, but sometimes they make use of hues beyond the usual monochrome colors, even if it is just red-penned annotations.
:I think it's enough, since, even if grey is more used than other non-monochrome colors, I don't believe it's so important that it needs to be included as a "third" main color. If Randall uses many bright colors, that he will obviously also use simpler hues of grey when needed. What do you think? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:Aside from the antialising edging gradient, I just used the Random Page link and landed on [[1301: File Extensions|something with functional greys]], [[734: Outbreak|an unusual use of 'Post-It' yellow]], an unremarkably "just black pen" comic and then [[1788: Barge|more functional grey]]. I'd argue against "monochrome" as a description, as clearly there is more than just #000000 and #FFFFFF, often enough, in an actual fill-colour/broad-brush context. Even if that's #808080 or another no-hue shade. (I was expecting to land on a "grey pen" comic to assess, after enough clicks but, having seen what I got in the random first handful, I saw no need to go on.)
:And "monochrome" can be/often is coloured. Sepia photographs or "night vision" green displays are perfect examples of monochrome (with or without halftones/dithering/whatever). As is [[267: Choices: Part 4]] (other Choices comics may be considered "duotone", in different ways).
:Maybe "...are often drawn as black shapes on white, or occasionally white shapes on a dark background, but may feature at least one additional highlighting shade or an even fuller colour pallette." Does that sufficiently cover that whole breadth of use? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.154|172.70.86.154]] 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

== Childish slang. ==

Agree with you on the recent change that you (generic 'you', not ''you'' 'you'!) sound infantile, any which way, upon use of the words mentioned. Which is how it was still said before the revert in that version of edit. But with <code>"pretty gay" and "retarded" are infantile and offensive slang for "foolish" or "contemptible"</code>, you miss the point. Foolishness is just one distant contender for what "pretty gay" is often intended to mean (even if not actually being used for someone/something 'effeminate'). And "retarded" is more in the whole "thick, stupid, dumb" line of insult than "contemptible" (which is more "horrible, dislikable, repulsive"..?).
 Personally, I also thought it better with not actually defining insults (correctly or otherwise), as it adds power to them. I can call someone a "numpty" in jest, for example, and colloquially that might be understood as the low-level insult (if that) which it is intended to be. But if I start to bandy around its {{wiktionary|numpty#Scots|dictionary definition}} then it becomes more of a seriously accusatory description.
 Just my opinion. Not really understanding the latest revert when it had seemed to be improved (if anything) in the version you reverted away. Just putting it there. I know you're doing a lot of editing (good stuff!) just wondering if you considered this one carefully enough in your obvious zeal. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.89|172.71.182.89]] 16:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
:Addendum. Meant to say, if you decide to undo/reform your own revert (I won't do it, but on the offchance you see my point), I'd have not said "''commonly'' used". They're used in slang, but I don't think we can say how frequently they pop up. They're "used in slang" (and also not in slang, or at least not insulting slang, where "gay" has a long history of just meaning "happy", whilst "retarded" is often to do with decceleration/minimised acceleration of physical systems) but I'm not sure they're no more than minority words in the whole world of such language. They depict a subset of insult-givers (like the character in the comic, for whom it adds a certain additional characterisation) amongst all the many and varied insult-givers, and Randall surely chose such semi-bowlderised terms to not have to write any of all the far worse words he might also have done. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.31|172.71.94.31]] 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

== IP page to delete ==

I didn't see your thinking about why the Deletion category was not needed there. And, believe me as an IP myself, I've never known anything useful being said on an IP's User or User Talk page. With that example not breaking the pattern any. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.131|172.70.85.131]] 00:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:I just don't think there's a reason to delete it, it's useful to have a previous talk page if the IP continues to edit and people want to communicate with them [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::"The IP" is whichever one of 'us' happens to land on that particular Cloudflare route.
::I'm not going to go back and find out which IP it represents, to check if it's in their current stock of connected gateways, but it might not be. Or it was even (depending on date) a pre-Cloudflare 'straight' access unproxied and thus no longer seen, even if the exact same editor on the exact same IP lucked on ''their'' initial gateway.
::Certainly it won't map to a meaningful 'user', chances may even be that it doesn't map to ''any'' user. IP-version User/User Talk pages are anachronisms pretty much as soon as they're created. Or before, if based upon trying to contact an author of an older edit. I was on 172.70.85.131, above, but who knows (before I submit it) what this reply's sign-off will say.
::And a one-shot editor may never ever see the results of any conversation that was tried to be started. Whereas I ''might'' see any response, anywhere, that contextually makes it plain that they're talking about an edit I once made.
::Honestly, I think it'd be worthwhile checking ''every'' IP-focussed namespace page and archiving anything truly interesting that found itself in there in some other central location then condemning them all to deletion. Maybe, if possible, prevent their creation too. But I don't have the ability to do anything (except sift through them for any of the very rare gems of quality, but I wouldn't be able to do anything about it from there on in, so...
::...not gonna do anything more about it (I can't, other than reinstate the To Be Deleted membership, whch I won't bother with), but I hope you understand my perspective on this. I've seen you become a very useful member of the community, who I generally respect for your input and tweaks to the site, and don't expect you to take instruction from li'l ol' me (not even working with an established identity). Just consider this as food for thought, and leave it at that if you wish. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.19|162.158.34.19]] 20:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

== RTL/LTR: "...but I think it refers to me" ==

Yeah, it does. The point being that we might not do anything about the smartarses who vandalise knowingly (and I don't see a problem with what you otherwise did), but when someone thinks ''they'' have unique and funny joke (along the lines of putting "Citation needed"s ''everywhere'') they might spot the comment and then realise how we've seen it all done before so refrain from the prank. I can't even recall how many times we have had to revert things, but best to put off the casual comedian, and it won't change the outcome either way for the dedicated vandal with their blood up and looking to cause trouble. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.107|141.101.98.107]] 20:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:I guess you're right, I just thought it was very clear for everyone that rendering an entire article unreadable was an act of pure vandalism, but I guess an editor comment doesn't hurt. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

== The reason "the image size wasn't there"? ==

...because it didn't need an image-size restriction, originally? Compare the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:Miss_lenhart.png previous and current version sizes]. Nice to have a (''huge!'') high-res headshot, no doubt, but clearly that's why you found that it now needs artificially constraining... No actual mystery. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.63|172.70.85.63]] 17:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

:Yeah you're right, I just assumed every comic had the image size to be future-proof. The weird thing was that the "imagesize: " part was already there, but there was no value. Anyway, nothing important.

: Just out of curiosity, are you the same IP guy from [[#IP page to delete]]?--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

== I disagree with Oxford commas. ==

"For breakfast I had some bread, toast, and jam." - A legitimate(ish) case of ", and ". Or "I created the world, and saw that it was good." I otherwise prefer to suscribe to replacing all non-final conjunctions in sequence with commas but ''not'' adding one before the ultimate (remaining) conjunction. That's like having "Fish, and chips", where it isn't an actual afterthought. And best to rephrase or repunctuate (e.g. with super-listing semicolons to separate) if you have confusing comma-breakout clauses that ''so'' easily clash (or lead you down funny garden paths) with Oxford Commas. My opinion, but this is why syntax is clearer when leaving out OCs. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.93|172.70.85.93]] 13:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:I just think it's better to use it everywhere to avoid any possible confusion. If we used it half the time, it would be inconsistent. But it's no big deal.
::Similarly, no big deal. Except that it ''looked'' like an error. You've done a lot of useful changes, recently... A ''lot''... Which is not a bad thing, I must add. Occasionally I've seen what (I thought!) you intended to say, and I've helped out with a misplaced word or two. And I honestly do not feel like OCs read correctly in many circumstances. How would you even OC something like "...you should paint it red, yellow or, maybe, orange"?
::The comma already does a lot of heavy lifting, four or five different uses can occur in the same sentence, with it commonly doing duty as a sub-clause parenthetical (except without the clear open/close distinction of an actual parenthetical) ''as well as'' conjunction-replacement within a list. You will find many instances of non-OCed lists on the site. In fact I find the "Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd..." bit, below this edit box, to be the exception and not the rule.
::Anyhoo... I 'corrected' an example, but did not re'correct' it once you made it obvious what rule you were working to. I think you're less right than me, naturally, even if I wouldn't say that you're more wrong. ;) But I thought I'd make you a brief note of my thoughts rather than edit-warring the issue. Less brief, now, but I hope you still take it in good humour. (Oh, yeah, I'm sort of Ok with Oxford Spelling, insofar as it's mostly what I use naturally. Except for the "-ize" bit. That and their Comma are totally against how I was taught at school, a number of decades ago. :P ) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.71|172.71.242.71]] 15:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:::You really seem to care about this a lot more than I do, if you want feel free to revert my edit back. I'm not even sure why we're here talking about commas lol
:::I'm no expert and I just like commas. Thanks for checking my edits, I think I've seen a few of your corrections. I have a lot of free time at the moment and I seem to like fixing up unorganized things here --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

== Science Girl/Hairbun ==

You may have noted that several of the Talk pages attached to those you changed already had discussions about whether someone was Hairbun or (a possibly grown-up version of) Science Girl, and you had people like Kynde support the change ''to'' treating her as Science Girl. No skin off my nose, but I'm not sure your arguments are strong enough to support your broad sweep changes in that regard. I think I'd side with "bun with trailing hair" being SG (regardless of apparent age/maturity, as the description only really says ''usually'' a child, whether you take that as prescriptivist or descriptivist) but not enough that I'd reverse your considerable efforts in this matter. But on the off-chance that you hadn't noticed the prior discussions and conclusions, before making your own assessment. FYI, only. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.204|172.71.178.204]] 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

:I will properly reply to you tomorrow since it's midnight here. Btw thanks for letting me know these hyperlinks were rendered correctly, and for fixing my 1 typo <s>(after i corrected 100)</s>
::Guys, some things may be being taken too seriously. Assuming [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1608:_Hoverboard&diff=prev&oldid=317396 this was the 'one error'], yeah, the Pedant's Curse hits us all, that's the point. Easy to see how it was done (read as "a Category:Interactive..." rather than "an interactive", or whatever). Happens to the best of us, when concentrating on loads of other things. Not sure about the Jill thing, at all, myself, but that discussion is probably for soewhere else. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.158|172.69.79.158]] 22:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

:::Nonononono I wasn't serious when I thanked you about the typo, I was also just kidding. I was joking about how after I corrected a ton of typos I added one more.
:::On the main topic you brought up: I think Jill's main characteristics (I'll talk about why I renamed her) are that she is a child, she is usually interested in science, and has always one or two buns with trailing hair. [[Hairbun]] isn't as defined as Jill: she just has a bun. This is what the page [[Hairbun]] (written entirely by Kynde, I haven't reformatted to remove the bullet points yet), say about the bun:
----
:::*Her appearance, apart from her glasses, can also change.
:::**In 703: Honor Societies, 708: Sex Dice, 1511: Spice Girl, 1601: Isolation and in every instance in 1608: Hoverboard her hair looks somewhat different, curly and with some kind of ponytail, but since '''her main distinguishing characteristic is the hair bun''', these comics are included.
:::[...]
:::*There are some characters with hair buns that are not Hairbun:
:::**Since she is a grown woman, she should not be confused with Jill or any other small girls with hair bun like in 1584: Moments of Inspiration.
----
:::And on the Page for Jill, before I ever touched it, it said:
:::*As she is usually also clearly a child she usually cannot be confused with Hairbun
----
:::Kynde mentioned [[1511: Spice Girl]] and [[1601: Isolation]] as featuring Hairbun and not Jill, but they look exactly like a grown-up Jill. Plus, on the gallery section on [[Hairbun]] (I'm working on adding back a better one since the old one was kinda broken UPDATE 11:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC): Added the gallery back with vector images), this was the first picture of Hairbun:
:::[[File:Hair Bun Girl with curly hair and ponytail.png]]

:::So, to recap: Hairbun has always had a version with a bun with trailing hair, but it was inconsistent between comics, so I settled on Jill is a girl that always has trailing hair and Hairbun is an adult that sometimes has trailing hair.

:::On the topic of renaming Jill:
:::*I searched the wiki for Jill and found 3 discussions. One of them ended up "why world we even create a page for that girl, there aren't many comics featuring her.", but didn't criticize the name too much iirc
:::*We did the same thing for [[Danish]]. The only time she was given ''any'' name ("Danish in the sense of "darling" iirc), that was the name used.
:::*If we change our minds and Jill also becomes a woman, we don't have to remove the "girl" part.
:::*I'm not sure about this, but I think she's slowing being added more and more outside science comics.

:::Wow this was long --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

== In reply to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2794:_Alphabet_Notes&curid=26437&diff=321127&oldid=320916 this query]... ==

There's {{w|Welsh orthography|the Welsh}}, at the very least! (Well, you did ask! Even if it's truly not so relevent. ;) ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.159|172.70.86.159]] 11:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:Lol. TIL! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

== Plural animals ==

Following on from Ferret->Ferrets, what about the last remaining singular that is Category:Apatosaurus? (I must admit, all your edits/re-edits are making my head spin, as worthy as they often are, but this seems like the next logical step that I thought you might have done to finish that particular neatening job.) But I'll leave it up to you as to whether it's Apatosauruses, Apatosaurii or whatever else you might consider most appropriate... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.98|172.70.85.98]] 10:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
:I actually thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that I don't know what the plural of that word is. Feel free to research if there's a "right" word and rename that category :)
:> (I must admit, all your edits/re-edits are making my head spin,
:Yeah I don't really organize everything I want to change beforehand, so whenever i notice a little thing is missing, I add it to every page that needs it. I guess it's easier to review my edits in bulk from a page's version history lol --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

== Username ==
I spotted a spam-like user named "Papyrus". [[User:ChristmasGospel|ChristmasGospel]] ([[User talk:ChristmasGospel|talk]]) 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting, i edited that comic's page yesterday. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
== Community portal spam ==
The spammers seem to be deleting text from Community Portal. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 07:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks, but I couldn't find any recent example concerning me. Do you mind giving an example? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Possible Adminship? ==

Hi FaviFake, I’m Victoria. I’m planning on reaching out to Jeff via Twitter/X because there’s a long list of things that only he can do. You can see the list at my [[User:42.book.addict#To_Do_List_for_Jeff|user page]]. One of these tasks is promoting more admins. Seeing as you are quite active, and have done quite a lot of edits (top 10 in CS score-wow!), would you like to be mentioned in my message as a possible admin candidate? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
: Oh hey, thanks for messaging me! I started caring a lot for this site about a year ago, went on a complete pause for a few months, and came back this week. You seem very active, love to see some new active users! I saw your message on the community portal saying you were trying to find a way to contact Jeff. That's actually something I've thought about doing for a long time but never actually tried since not even Davidy22 was able to contact him at one point iirc.
:Anyway, yes, I'd love to be an admin for this site since there are so many things I can't do as a user (i have my own to-do list, which includes 1) actually deleting pages in Pages to delete and 2) improving/fixing the comic templates and Main page).
: So yeah, I wish you good luck contacting him! My only advice is to use any possible way to (or to get someone else to) contact him without worrying too much about annoying him. His last contribution was more than a year ago, he can totally jump back in for a moment after being unreachable for so long. I really like your message, it's very well-written, now the hard part is getting it to him. Asking Davidy22 for his email address (or finding it online) sounds like a great idea to me. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia below transcript ==
The FAQ page says that trivia is below transcript. I'm very sorry about this. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Nono don't be sorry, you're totally right! I came back here after months of being offline and forgot about the order! I realised my mistake yesterday but didn't have the time to go look for the article to revert my edit. Please revert it if you get the chance to do it before me. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::There, I should've fixed it now. I see you also reverted my edit, thanks! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== On the Ghosts in the NavPane ==

When I saw 42's inclusion of Ghosts in the Character NavPane, I was pondering asking for Demons and Aliens (the blob-monster types, or near variations, from both UFO-ish comics and far-future) to be added alongside.

But I agree with you that they're not ''really'' minor characters. Yet I think they (all of them) deserve a slot there, as they are as much a feature as the (Animals/)Squirrels section. Originally thought to suggest "Groups" (could include "Multiple Cueballs" and even "Children" for groups with otherwise un-IDed child characters), which you could still ''also'' add (but for human-character groups only), but now thinking "Other Beings" could hold Ghosts, Demons and Aliens (maybe "Future Beings" separate from the latter, or at least the differently-futuristic "Floating Orbs" as ''another'' other classification category in there). As a section between Real People and Animals, I thought, unless it's decided best to put them after Animals.

Food for thought, anyway. You (and 42, and maybe others) may have your own ideas on this, and I wouldn't (and can't) spring my own ideas upon you by suddenly just editing the appropriate source. It probably needs discussion. I nearly put my earlier thoughts in the Community Portal area, but as you're personally active on this at the moment I thought it might be easier for you to ponder if I finally commited it to writing just here. (Feel free to move this contrib/advertise it wider, if you see fit.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 14:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Just popping in to add my 2 cents-I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of having “other beings” in the navbox. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hey there, thanks a lot for messaging me about this. I disagree with you for one specific reason: the navbox was initially supposed to catalogue the recurring characters in the comics which displayed more or less the same behaviours across comics, such as [[Black Hat]] and [[Beret Guy]]. It then expanded to include real people, such as politicians, which still remained the same characters across different comics. The animal section is different in that some of them are the same animals across comics (such as bobcats and red spiders, for example), but since we had to include them, we included EVERY animal, even when they were completely different every time, because it'd look weird if the only animals there were the specific ones i mentioned.
::If we included a section such as Other beings that includes ghosts, I believe it would be filled with characters that are not the same in every comic they appear in and the navbox would completely lose its intended purpose. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

== (Whoops, forgot a header!) ...FYC ==

If you agree with {{diff|356369|these additions/changes}}, with or without other adjustments, I was wondering if you'd like to do the respective changes to the Incomplete Article category page, as I find it's semi-protected and I'm thus locked out from the edits that I thought I might duplicate there too (in my IP state – yes, I know I could change this, but I'm happier just to leave it up to you/whoever). Anyway, for your consideration. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.75|162.158.202.75]] 17:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
: Done! Thanks. I removed a few technical details. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Interesting streamlined 'table furniture', but... ==

...I'm wondering about the current (slight) usage differences between:
style="text-align:center" | {{{1}}}
and:
style="white-space:nowrap" |
Do you need to add the Param1 to the nowrap/remove if from the text-alignment?

And what if someone wanted no-wrap+centre at the same time? There maybe ''are'' ways to combine <code><nowiki>{{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{nw}}</nowiki></code>, but it seems non-trivial to to do. (Unless you make a <code><nowiki>{{nwac}}</nowiki></code>, but then where do you end?) I'm wondering if you should try it without the |-character.

Let's see if that ''could'' work:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ Test
|-
! Foo !! Bar !! Baz
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="text-align:center" style="white-space:nowrap" | This is as if using variations <code><nowiki>{{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{nw}}</nowiki></code> as rendered without the pipe-character or inconsistent parameter, which is tricky to demonstrate with the actual templates.|| More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="text-align:center" | style="white-space:nowrap" | This is how <code><nowiki>{{ac|{{nw}} <foo>}}</nowiki></code> might look || More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || {{ac|{{nw}} This is how <code><nowiki>{{ac|{{nw}} <foo>}}</nowiki></code> ''does'' look, using the current state of the templates.
----
<s>''NB. Why is it in bold? Is that a normal feature of a style of text-align:center?''</s>}}
| More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="white-space:nowrap" | style="text-align:center" | This is how <code><nowiki>{{nw}} {{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> might look || More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || {{nw}} {{ac|This is how <code><nowiki>{{nw}} {{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> ''does'' look, using the current state of the templates.}}
----
<s>''Also goes bold, I notice!''</s>
| More normal text of a normal style
|}

So, yes, it looks like it might be better to just remove the pipe (or pipe-and-param) and rely on the table-writer to just put in the relevent bare style-giving {{}} (or {{}}s) before the pipe. (I must look into why there's unexpected boldness. I don't know if that comes from the way you templated it or as an associated function of the aligh-center style. But it doesn't appear when I do it 'raw'.) Anyway, food for thought, over to you. It looks like I ''could'' edit your templates, but that might be rude, and would of course instantly break whatever it is you're currently using them (singly) for. That's the ''What If?'' table, I suppose? Anyway, you can both 'fix' how they work and adjust how they are invoked, rather than leaving me to guess about the latter. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:PS: Yes, I have just checked, and, yes you've added (apparently ''after'' I saw and copied the original {{template|ac}} for my own testing and emulating purposes!) the bolding to the aligh-centering template. That part of the mystery is solved! :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:PPS: I know what happened. I copied the (slightly '''formatted''') 'plaintext' as it appeared in the template. If I'd have edited it and copied the wikisource then I'd have grabbed the <nowiki>'''formatted''</nowiki> as you already had it by the time I passed by. Don't mind me, it was just something that made me wonder. Probably moreso than the thing that I was ''actually'' trying to prod and poke and solve! IOW: Ignore me. On this bit, at least! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.151|172.68.205.151]] 19:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::I love how interested you are about this! Honestly i'm not really sure what exactly it is you're asking, but you seem very smart so do whatever you want! My only request is that the {{:ac}} thing keeps working as expected, so i don't have to change the table again. I had forgotten about the {{:nw}} thing, you can delete it or change it or do anything else, I don't use it anymore. Feel free to add to the documentation that these are just for 1 table and might break everything if used anywhere else. Or, if they already work everywhere, great! I remember I created them expecting the entire page to be destroyed when used, and being pleasantly surprised when they worked. So yeah go wild! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to make any change without taking time to check your tables and making sure the appropriate change doesn't inflict damage on your attempts to curate the tables you're probably using it for.
:::But, in short, I understand that you're streamlining the (often longwinded) style="" statements, an admirble task. In the structure of "| cell || another cell || etc", you're doing something to save from having to do cumbersome "| cell || style="this-style: that; that-style: that; the-other-style: the.other" | another cell || etc", all of which makes editing 'difficult'. (I tend to do such things in Notepad, or whatever separate text editor I have, which lets me add temporary whitespace and use with no-wrap on the markup while I'm working on it, rather than in this textbox editor.)
::: But the single-pipe that formats the cell isn't a ''great'' difficulty to maintain (indeed, it is useful to line up). As such I'd suggest "| cell || <nowiki>{{??}}</nowiki> | another cell || etc" would be as good. i.e. leave the pipe (intended for the table-cell) out of the template. For the no-wrap version, that's easy enough. Though I do understand that you want to put bold-format about the cell contents, so that's why you give it as a param and explicitly bold the Param1 as you pass it back out.
::: Maybe the solution to ''that'' is to also add (to the style, along with the text-align:center) the "font-weight: bold" doublet. Then "... || <format(s), as templates and/or raw> | Cell Text || ..." doesn't ''need'' to 'enclose' the Cell Text in any way.
::: But making the change from something that expects to transclude the range of the template "... || format | Cell Text || ..." to "... || format | Cell Text || ..." obviously requires that each and every table-cell item that uses "... || <nowiki>{{template|Cell Text}}</nowiki> || ..." to be converted to "... || <nowiki>{{template}}</nowiki> | Cell Text || ...", or... it'll definitely not work as it was originally set.
::: Anyway, that's just my own vision of how you can do what you seem to have wanted to, without introducing more complications. As the cell-formatting gladly accepts multiple statements of the form style="..." (it adds <code>style="..." style="..." style="..."</code> together, much as <code>style="...; ...; ..."</code> does), an editor now has complete freedom to compound the two format-templates you created. And any additional ones that might be useful. Such ones to usefully colour cell backgrounds as red/yellow/green (for use on the various Confusion Tables), something that I sometimes take a couple of goes to do... not least because I habitually spell 'color' as 'colour'..! ;)
::: ...but that's just to explain so that (should you/anybody else wish to follow my own instincts on the matter), you have some decent idea of what I'm getting at. There are probably other ways of doing it. Templates can be made to detect and extract pipes, so that "... || <nowiki>{{template1|{{templete2|Cell Text}}}}</nowiki> || ..." ''or'' "... || <nowiki>{{template2|{{templete1|Cell Text}}}}</nowiki> || ..." would equally produce "... || templateOneOrTwoFormat templateTwoOrOneFormat | Cell Text || ...", but that would take a degree of of unwieldy parameter-processing functions (that I'd have to work out, probably would involve some subst-function, but might depend upon what's available in the installed mediawiki version). I just think you could avoid all that trouble! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.118|162.158.74.118]] 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Forgot to say, that for what you want to use it for, there's ''another'' way:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ Example 2
|-
! Number (Centered) !! Foo !! Bar (Centered) !! Baz
|-
! 1
| Normal text of a normal style
! Some text of whatever size (centered)
| More normal text of a normal style
|-
! 2
| Normal text of a normal style
! Some text of whatever size (also centered, though not so obviously so)
| More normal text of a normal style
|}
:::... This is only possible by newlining each new cell, in the example (you can't do "! cell || cell !! cell || cell", you have to line-break it as you change from "!"-/"|"-starting cell-groups), but it isn't really so great a loss to do so.
:::The "wikitable" class gives these 'header cells' a different background too, but (if you really don't like that) it that can be adjusted in various other ways (including with scope="col", I think), or you can leave the wikitable class off (it centres and bolds, but doesn't give cell-borders) and re-add the whole-table bordering style that this now leaves out. But you really don't want me listing ''every'' idea I had, just this one was the other (template-free) option to enforcing centre-aligning bold text on ''certain'' cells. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Huh, I was actually thinking of doing the opposite of what you're suggesting: include even more pipes inside the template so the editor is cleaner and easier to use. (UPDATE: this probably worse than the other option you gave at the end, see below). So instead of this:

|-
<nowiki>| {{ac|4}} || </nowiki>

::::You would just use this:

|-
<nowiki>{{ac|4}}</nowiki>

::::And it would contain all the pipes needed. I guess then we would have to update the documentation to point out that this template's use case is extremely narrow. Also, if you want to see how it is currently used, the table is on my user page! That's the only place where it's used

::::Since you seem very interested in templates, What do you think of the idea of a creating a template like these:

<nowiki>{{yt|YTNUMBER (1, 2, 3, etc)|YTLINK|VIDEOTITLE (optional)}}</nowiki>

::::It would be used in the column that we still need to create. It would also colour the cell in '''red'''. I was also thinking of doing a similar thing for the What If? books:

<nowiki>{{bk|WHICH-BOOK|CHAPTER-NUMBER|CHAPTER-TITLE (if different)}}</nowiki>

::::For example, it would look like this: (This one would also colour the cell based on the book, e.g., green for WI?1, yellow for WI?2, blue for WI10th ed.)

<nowiki>{{book|2|69|Jellyfish}}</nowiki>

What If? 2, chapter '''69: Jellyfish'''

::::Would you be able to create something like this? I know nothing about templates, and i doubt I'll be able to ask chatgpt to do everything for me correctly. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::> Forgot to say, that for what you want to use it for, there's ''another'' way:
:::::Oh, i think i had forgotten to read this part!! This seems very interesting! I should try that, since it seems much simpler. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::'''Update:''' {{Done}} I applied your suggestion, now the numbers are in their own row:
|-
!1
| The rest of the table
--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

== YouTube template ==
Hey FaviFake, on the <code><nowiki>{{yt}}</nowiki></code> template, you asked for help on fixing the code of the template. What help do you need to “improve” it? I’m willing to help now that I’m not sick, as I was last week. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! Glad to hear you're healthy. That message was mostly a joke, but it is in fact barely held together. (Try modifying the hyperlink that's displayed when a title isn't provided, somehow what you add gets duplicated??) If you have the time and know how to make it more reliable and easily editable in the future, please do! I am honstly scared to touch it fearing it might explode.

:Buuut, to be fair there is one template that i desperately needed help with, and that is [[:Template:book]]. I wasted a ton of time to try to get it to change the cell background, and it never worked, so i decided to create [[Template:book1]], [[Template:book2]], [[Template:book3]], [[Template:book4]], and these do work beaytifully, but are harder to edit in bulk. (I still have profound hatred towards [[Template:book]]...). If you actually manage to do what i wanted (which i'm not sure is even clear after the all the mess i've made... ask me if you can't figure it out!), I would be very grateful. PS. I'm not sure if i should warn you, given my very low ability to create templates, but it's definitely not easy, imo.

:I'm not sure how skilled you are at template editing, so if you want, you can absolutely continue uploading the What If? thumbnails like you did a few days ago! I just added [[User:FaviFake|a new batch of articles]] (about 60) thanks to some annoyingly complex jailbreaking of Google's NotebookLM. The new table of course includes the quick 100px link to upload a file. Again, thanks for reaching out! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::The YT link appears to be going to <nowiki>[[whatever the name of the YouTube video is called]]</nowiki> and not acting as a [youtube.com filler thingy] linking to a YouTube video. I’m going to hit the books on template writing and try to see if I can do anything about it. Cheers! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh great, that's broken too. I didn't even realise it. Thanks!--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

== What If Chapters ==
Hey FaviFake, there are some What If? Chapters that aren’t included in the blog. Are we going to add them to the table? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Great timing! You sent me this message while i was in the process of replying to the question. I'm not good at prioritising, I should've definitely responded before doing other edits. Check out my <s>list of questions for y'all</s> reply above! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

==Sorting "Chapter xx.."==
Hi... An alternative to the way you are lead-zeroing the text cell's numeric suffix, for sorting purposes, which is what I think {{diff|363528|this is all about}}, would be to do so something like:
... || data-sort-value={{{1}}} | Chapter {{{1}}} || ...
Should be able to deal with any numeric value, while still rendering it simply as "Chapelter 1"/"Chapter 10"/"Chapter 100"/ etc, but adding ''data-sort-type="number"'' to the header cell might even be able to sort not-quite-numbers, should a future book ever do chapters like "... 7, 7a, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12b, 14, ...".
 Perhaps even ''data-sort-value=<booknumber>.<chapternumber>'' would be useful. Though you'd have to use the sufficient-leading-zeroes method, again, and could start at 1.0000001 ''just'' in case there's ever a million (but not more than 10mil-1) chapters in a future bookbut would probably be useful to sort all book-contained items, across all books but not interleaved.
 I'll let you consider if/what you find it more useful. And perhaps check if I've given you the right table markup options by going and checking the Help:Sorting Tables/whatever pages. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.107|141.101.99.107]] 00:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{notice|<big>'''If you're here for the '''what if?''' index, [[#The huge what if? index|click here]]'''}}

3039: Human Altitude

2025-01-19T17:40:25Z

172.70.91.29: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3039
| date = January 17, 2025
| title = Human Altitude
| image = human_altitude_2x.png
| imagesize = 508x495px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I wonder what surviving human held the record before balloons (excluding edge cases like jumping gaps on a mountain bridge). Probably it was someone falling from a cliff into snow or water, but maybe it involved something weird like a gunpowder explosion or volcano.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT HILARIOUSLY STUCK IN A TREBUCHET- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic purports to show the altitudes of humans over time, starting from a little after 1700. The conceit is that it indicates the ''single'' most altitudinous individual at any given time, so does not follow any particular person but would switch focus to whichever representative of humanity becomes "the highest up" (whether by rising above the previous leader, or by remaining high as the other loses their own elevation). There will necessarily be a degree of artistic interpretation and presumed trajectory of this particular marker, although the general trend of the line appears to be inspired by (some) actual factual realities. It uses a [[Log Scale | logarithmic vertical scale]] in order to indicate the finer details of 'low level' altitudes, yet fit the highest achievements onto the page. The measurements do not count altitude ''due'' to the ground beneath them, so a resident of {{w|Tibet}} or the {{w|Andes|high Peruvian Andes}} (for example) does not normally gain any particular advantage.

Prior to 1783, the {{w|Montgolfier brothers#Piloted flight, autumn_1783|first confirmed ascent}} of a human in a balloon, the line's high-points are indicated to be due to "various falls", i.e. a person who ''was'' on the top of a particularly high building/cliff/tree suddenly finding themselves (for an instant or two, at least) the person 'lucky' enough to be considered the furthest above the ground (it is at times like this that living at a higher absolute altitude ''might'' grant an 'advantage' to the individual who suddenly discovers their previously high standing-spot to no longer be as reliable as they thought). It also suggests that "catapult accidents", such as accidentally, or maybe [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/01/highereducation.students not so accidentally] being caught in a sling on a {{w|trebuchet}} when it is fired (indicated as "hilarious") may also contribute to the (momentary) gain in altitude. The limit to this period's ability to exist at altitude appears to be around 100 metres, which is perhaps mostly what a particular precipitous (and precarious) cliff-top might contribute to the situation. Only the eventual punchline of the title-text even hints at whether any of these feats might have been survivable, perhaps the minimum requirement is merely that the individual be alive (to still be considered a person) at the point they are at their claimed height — if the resulting return to ground level is fatal, usually this will happen upon meeting the surface, by which point they are already no higher than all other humans.

Once {{w|balloon}} flights start, heights of up to 10km are attained. And though there were some {{w|List of ballooning accidents|dangers}} from this, as early aeronauts discovered, it might at least now be presumed that some of these peaks were attained by individuals who had previously marked a prior instantaneous altitude on the graph.

Shortly after the 1900s, {{w|airplanes}} dominate the graph. And the rise in utility of passenger aircraft (before World War 2; but especially afterwards, following a period where regular and extended high-altitude flight has been experienced by bomber pilots of various nations) ensures not only that there are people attaining greater and greater altitudes, but also that there are also always ''other'' people in the air, ensuring that the lesser 'maximum altitude' periods still have people a significant number of kilometres in the air.

Interestingly, the lower-limit, all the way up to the invention of the airplane, seems to stay at about two metres (around 1881, the lowest marked position seems to be only slightly above 1 metre), which might represent the possibility of there always being at least ''someone'' climbing up a ladder and/or jumping off of a hay-cart. This does not, of course, discount the very real possibility that there are persons about to attain greater altitude, as the parts ''between'' the lowermost fluctuations obviously represent periods of someone having yet greater vertical displacement.

Once {{w|spaceflight}} becomes a thing (interestingly, marked around the late 1960s, though it actually started in April 1961), that greatly increases the upper spikes for the (implied) duration of the {{w|Orbital spaceflight|orbital flights}}.

The {{w|Apollo Program}} is then indicated by both label and a notable spike as (between {{w|Apollo 8}} in December 1968 and {{w|Apollo 17}} in December 1972), men from Earth were sent around the Moon and attained altitudes 'above the Earth' of approximately 400,000km in the process. Note that the disclaimer "(very approximate)" in the chart's title also applies here, as the graph shows fewer spikes than actual Moon orbitings or landings performed.

Since the end of the original Moon landings, the upper spikes settled down quite significantly back to 'only' generally low orbital distances, but the very latest era, marked "Space Station", seems to coincide with the current continuous inhabitation of space, which officially started in November 2000. Since that date, there has ''always'' been someone at approximately 400km altitude (give or take changes in the orbit, and of the terrain below), with occasionally some yet higher person(s) on certain missions (e.g. servicing the {{w|Hubble Space Telescope}}, May 2009 at 515km). The graph does not ''seem'' to show the blip created by {{w|Polaris Dawn}}'s 1,400 km 'new record' of September 2024, but this may be ''just'' off the right-hand edge of the graph.

Though the historical validity is sometimes argued, it is interesting to note that (as early as the 6th century CE), experiments with man-flying kites may have produced (semi-)brief spikes in the altitude record for the time.
Also, workers and bell-ringers in medieval cathedrals, or attendants at the Lighthouse of Alexandria, would have been substantially above the "tens of meters" level. Moreover, the Eiffel tower has been open to visitors since its opening in 1899, which would have ensured some people to be at at least 276m, during the opening hours. This indicates that people standing on buildings and tall structures do not count for the purpose of the graph, and combined with the fact that tornadoes can lift people high in the air and touch them down alive (though the latter stipulation ''may'' not even be required). It may be that Randall excluded cases in which the person was standing on a permanent structure, considering that as an equivalent to varying terrain. Perhaps he also refuses to count cases that are difficult to substantiate/quantify, such as those caused by violent winds, although the graph ''does'' convey the impression of an omniscient and absolute certainty beyond the more broad historical basis it outlines.

The title text talks of record-holders who survived, and the possible circumstances. Unlike the rapidly fluctuating line of the graph, a graph of the human altitude ''record'' would stay level except when incremented by a new attainment being reached, effectively drawing directly across from a given high-point in the trace until a new peak crosses it, then starting again from the top of ''that'' peak. The further stipulation of survivability would be represented by a lower line (only given the level of the tip of a new fluctuation once it is ratified that the individual concerned has survived their return to ground level, unsurvivable events not changing things). A lowest-upper-limit line could also be drawn using the low-tips of all fluctuations, representing the greatest height above the ground for which, from any given time onwards, there is always now at least one person higher. Currently, this would be at the lowest level of the orbit by the ISS but, if the ISS is abandoned prior to any further habitat in space (or beyond), this may need to be retroactively lowered to jet-plane altitudes (assuming they stay the dominant factor that they are, in the absence of space-inhabitation).

A ''different'' line to plot, which may also be the interpretable intent of the title text, could be the highest height visited by a ''still living human''. This trace would follow (most of?) the graphed upward fluctuations to their tips, then stay at least this high for only as long as the individual remain alive. This could end almost immediately (death at height due to exposure, or upon their terminal return to ground-level), or else for the rest of their long and fulfilling future life. But upon their demise, whenever that might be, it would revert down to whatever attainment ''another'' still-living human had established (which need not have previously featured on any graph, while those with greater marked achievements were still alive). Some of this graph would have a very similar look to [[893: 65 Years]], but in different ways and for different reasons; it would attain 'Moon height' from the very first orbit of Apollo 8 until the last death of an Apollo astronaut (from missions 8 and 10 to 17), assuming no {{w|Human mission to Mars|greater records}} are set before that point, then be reliant upon any living Artemis crews (or those from any {{w|Chinese space program#Near future development|equivalent}}) to sustain the "living record".

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:Height above Earth's surface of the highest-altitude human over time
:(very approximate)

:[A line graph is shown, with frequent spikes on the line. The y-axis is a logarithmic scale from 1 meter to 1,000,000 km. The x-axis shows years from about 1710 to 2025.]

:[Label between 1720s and 1780s, maximum height is roughly 100 meters:]
:Various falls and hilarious catapult accidents

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1780s to 1910s, maximum height is roughly 10 km:]
:Balloon flights

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1910s to 1960s, maximum height increases to roughly 100 km:]
:Airplane flights

:[Label with arrow, in the late 1960s, maximum height is roughly 500 km:]
:Spaceflight

:[Label with arrow, in the 1970s, maximum height is roughly 500,000 km:]
:Apollo Program

:[Label between 1990s and 2025, the average height after 2000 is roughly 500 km:]
:Space station

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Aviation]]

2043: Boathouses and Houseboats

2024-11-29T12:38:34Z

172.70.91.29: /* Explanation */ Unexplained combination explained. Changed a less-used alternative to a more-used one.

{{comic
| number = 2043
| date = September 7, 2018
| title = Boathouses and Houseboats
| image = boathouses_and_houseboats.png
| titletext = The <x> that is held by <y> is also a <y><x>, so if you go to a food truck, the stuff you buy is truck food. A phone that's in your car is a carphone, and a car equipped with a phone is a phonecar. When you play a mobile racing game, you're in your phonecar using your carphone to drive a different phonecar. I'm still not sure about bananaphones.
}}

==Explanation==
Most English {{w|English compound|compound nouns}} can be constructed recursively. In many cases they are written ''open'' or ''spaced'' like "piano player" (a player of a piano) or "player piano" (a piano {{w|Player piano|capable of unattended operation}}). But ''closed'' forms like "wallpaper" (paper for a wall) are not less common. The German language has much more compound words: The word for "hospital" literally means "patient's house". The word for "house trailer" in Swedish literally means "house car".

[[Randall]] is engaging in creative linguistics again. This time he is humorously suggesting to use a consistent naming scheme for things holding other things, the same way we call a boat holding a house a houseboat. He is extending this to all combinations boats, houses and cars. This would, however, be somewhat impractical, as these names do not include why one thing is on an other, and are also sometimes ambiguous: a carcar can be a tow truck as much as a car carrier, and a househouse can be either an apartment (house in a house) or an apartment building (house containing houses).

Additionally, he is somewhat inconsistent in some parts of the chart. While the chart is supposed to show examples of neologistic compound words <x><y> that refer to a <y> that ''holds'' an <x>, rather than a <y> ''in'' an <x>. However, Randall's examples sometimes are those of the latter example. He proposes to call lifeboats, which are boats held by other boats, "boatboat", instead of using that to refer to boats holding other boats, such as floating drydocks. Additionally, it is established naval practice to refer to a boat which is carried by another vessel as a "ship's boat", and call any vessel that carries a boat a "ship". In other words, according to usual naval terminology, a "boatboat" is a contradiction in terms; it is either a "boatship", synonymous with ship and hence redundant, or a "shipboat", the ship's boat. "Apartment" is a similar case: an apartment is a house in a house, while a house that holds a house is an apartment building or apartment complex. (However, in the title text, Randall points out an <x><y> could also refer to a <y> in an <x>, similar to the lifeboat and apartment examples. Nevertheless, "lifeboat" and "apartment" do not fit with the rest of the items of the chart and disobey the rule annotated in the corner.)

In the title text: "Truck food" is in some areas a common term for the meals offered by "{{w|Food truck|food trucks"}}. {{w|Car phone}}s were a feature in automobiles throughout the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, serving as the predecessors to mobile phones, although they were permanently installed into a car and not removable. ''{{w|Bananaphone}}'', a song by Raffi Cavoukian, is also mentioned.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Real term
! Actual definition
! Randall's definition
! Inaccuracies in Randall's definition
! Randall's term
|-
| {{w|Tow truck}}
| A truck that pulls or carries cars
| A Car that holds a Car
| Definitions are flexible. Tow trucks and cars are both automobiles, but "car" usually means an automobile dedicated to passengers, while "truck" is intended for hauling cargo (in the tow truck's case, other automobiles).
| Carcar
|-
| {{w|Garage (residential)|Garage}}
| A building for storing or repairing vehicles
| A House that holds a Car
| “Carhouse” actually does have Randall’s definition, but is far less popular than “garage.” It’s in the Oxford English Dictionary (using the spelling “car house”) and is used in To Kill a Mockingbird.
| Carhouse
|-
| {{w|Roll-on/roll-off|Car ferry}}
| A boat that carries cars, especially across a river
| A Boat that holds a Car
| Most car ferries hold more than one car at a time
| Carboat
|-
| {{w|Mobile home}}
| A home that can be moved by a truck
| A Car that holds a House
| The term "mobile home" refers to the home that is moved by a separate vehicle, not to the vehicle that moves it. (If the home is self-propelled, then it is called an RV (recreational vehicle).) The phrase "Trailer home" is also used.
| Housecar
|-
| {{w|Apartment}}
| A home within a building that has been divided into separate living units
| A House that holds a House
| The "apartment" is the individual home within the larger building, which is called an apartment building, possibly an apartment complex, but that usually refers to several apartment buildings on one property managed from the same office.
| Househouse
|-
| {{w|Houseboat}}
| A boat that is used as a house
| A Boat that holds a House
| A houseboat has a home that is part of the boat; it is not a separate home carried on a boat. However, a mobile home theoretically could be carried on a car ferry or a ship.
| Houseboat
|-
| {{w|Boat trailer}}
| A carrier that is towed behind a car or truck and holds a small boat
| A Car that holds a Boat
| The trailer is not the car; it is towed by the car.
| Boatcar
|-
| {{w|Boathouse}}
| A building for storing a boat
| A House that holds a Boat
| The word "house" typically refers to a residential building, but can refer to other buildings
| Boathouse
|-
| {{w|Lifeboat (shipboard)|Lifeboat}}
| A small boat carried on a ship, meant to be used to evacuate the larger ship, especially if it starts to sink or catches fire
| A Boat that holds a Boat
| This breaks Randall's definition: the lifeboat is not the "boatboat" because the lifeboat is the one being carried. And in technical terms the larger vessel is usually a ship, not a boat.
| Boatboat
|}

==Transcript==
:[A chart with three rows and three columns is shown, both with the same heading "car", "house", and "boat". On the top left a text with the word "this" two times embedded in a bubble and an arrow respectively pointing to the row and column heading reads:]
:A '''this''' that holds '''this'''

:[Most entries have the common word in black, but crossed out in red with another word below also in red. Two entries remain in green.]
:A Car that holds a Car: <s>Tow truck</s> Carcar
:A House that holds a Car: <s>Garage</s> Carhouse
:A Boat that holds a Car: <s>Car ferry</s> Carboat
:A Car that holds a House: <s>Mobile home</s> Housecar
:A House that holds a House: <s>Apartment</s> Househouse
:A Boat that holds a House: Houseboat (green text)
:A Car that holds a Boat: <s>Boat trailer</s> Boatcar
:A House that holds a Boat: Boathouse (green text)
:A Boat that holds a Boat: <s>Lifeboat</s> Boatboat

:[Caption below the frame:]
:I really like the words for "boathouse" and "houseboat" and think we should apply that scheme more consistently.

==Trivia==
The first version of the comic image used a different wording to indicate which word held the other. The column word holds the row. The original wording can be seen [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/3/38/20180907164439%21boathouses_and_houseboats.png here].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Confusion matrices]]