explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3164: Metric Tip

2025-11-06T14:13:17Z

Conster:

!tsrif --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 21:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
:If you like to have fun with first comments, the place to do it is The Daily WTF comment pages. https://thedailywtf.com. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Would have helped avoid the Mars Climate Orbiter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter] feature. [[User:SubtrEM|SubtrEM]] ([[User talk:SubtrEM|talk]]) 07:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I am switching from metric to imperial: I am 1m34.5" --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:You mean 1m2'26⅔cm. Or ''very nearly'' 2yd4cm½"..? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.220|82.132.244.220]] 12:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait, what? ounce can be volume or weight? So you could give the density of a material in oz/oz? Imperial units are really weird... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:That would be highly nonstandard. Density is usually given in pennyweight/cubic barleycorn. [[Special:Contributions/209.188.63.33|209.188.63.33]] 08:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:Not just that - it can be an areal density or a thickness, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ounce#Other_uses Strictly speaking, though, the imperial measure of volume is not an 'ounce', but a 'fluid ounce' - it's just that Americans have mangled the two together. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
: Weirdly enough, the active ingredient in something like medication is given in mg/oz (fluid ounce, presumably). That's just wrong.--[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 10:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"...are usually effectively one or other measurement of weight..." The grammar here seems wrong and confusing. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54C4:F71B:724:CBE7|2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:54C4:F71B:724:CBE7]] 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
: Better now? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm so glad I live in a metric country now. Helping people fix their terminally naff cars in the 80s in the UK was a trauma - spanner/socket sizes, like 13/16ths and 10/12ths and 1/2 and... so the guy takes one, not right, asks for the next size up. Well, what size is that then? You mean the six and a quarter eighths, yes? 😪
Oh, and don't get me started on American recipes - you'll very quickly discover that US Imperial and British Imperial are not the same (and far too many American recipes measure stuff in "cups"). So, really, Imperial is complicated enough without translating half into metric!
[[Special:Contributions/92.184.141.48|92.184.141.48]] 14:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I ran some numbers, and assuming 28.349523125 grams in an ounce and 16 ounces in a pound, "7 kg and 9 ounces" would be 7255.145708125 grams, assuming the "9 ounces" doesn't involve rounding, while 16 pounds would be 7257.47792 grams, which differs by only about 2.332211875 grams, or about 0.08 ounce - it's possible the weight is actually 16 pounds exactly, which feels like it makes "7 kg and 9 ounces" even worse than it already is. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 14:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

3097: Bridge Types

2025-06-03T14:22:26Z

Conster:

{{comic
| number = 3097
| date = June 2, 2025
| title = Bridge Types
| image = bridge_types_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x581px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Pontoon bridges are just linear open-sided waterbeds.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was recently created by a RAINBOW BRIDGE. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic shows, in a four-by-four grid of images, a series of bridge types. The first two rows of images are of authentic bridge types, whereas those in the last two rows are progressively more absurd. At first glance, the joke lies in the progression of bridge types from simple to realistically complex to totally bogus.

{| class="wikitable"
!Label
!style="width:7em;"|Status
!Type
!Notes
|-
|Plank
|Real
|{{w|Beam bridge}}
|A straightforward piece of solid material (in this case, made of solid wood, but there are {{w|Clapper bridge|other materials}}) is the most basic form of bridge, and generally the easiest to construct, but also the weakest. Consequently, such bridges are only suitable for small spans and light weights (such as a footbridge over a stream).
|-
|Rope
|Real
|{{w|Simple suspension bridge}}
|Rope bridges consist of several lengths of rope anchored on both sides of the span. Typically, one or more ropes will be intended to support the crossing load (possibly with boards or some other walkway between them), and additional ropes will act as handrails, reducing the risk of falling. These are typically only intended for foot traffic, due to their light construction and lack of rigidity. Because of the simple materials and relative ease of construction, they're often used as improvised bridges.
|-
|Truss
|Real
|{{w|Truss bridge}}
|A truss is a common type of framework consisting of supports connected in a series of triangles which provide support for a load. This design provides significant strength and rigidity with minimal material and weight. A truss bridge can either have the truss above the bridge platform (as in the drawing) or underneath it (also known as a deck truss). This is the first bridge type on this list which is commonly used for vehicle traffic.
|-
|Trestle
|Real
|{{w|Trestle bridge}}
|A trestle bridge is held up by supports reaching all the way to the ground beneath. Typically at least some of the supports will slope outward to give a larger base of support. Once common for railroads, these are less popular nowadays, but are still seen in certain areas and applications.
|-
|Arch
|Real
|{{w|Arch bridge}}
|Arches are one of the oldest kinds of bridges for carrying significant loads. They can be made out of rock or metal. Each span consists of an arch resting on supports. Simple arch bridges rest on both sides of a river or other gap, but longer bridges (as in the drawing) will have intermediate pillars to support multiple arches. The arches distribute the load, allowing a relatively small number of pillar to support weight across the entire deck of the bridge.
|-
|Suspended Arch
|Real
|{{w|Tied-arch bridge}}
|Tied arch bridges use a similar concept as arch bridges, but the arch is instead positioned overhead, with the deck supported by suspended cables. Such bridges may use a single arch (as in the drawing) or multiple arches in succession.
|-
|Draw
|Real
|{{w|Drawbridge}}
|Drawbridges are used to allow ships to pass through obstacles like bridges. They use a cable to pull up one or both sides of the bridge to create enough height clearance for vessels to pass through.
|-
|Suspension
|Real
|{{w|Suspension bridge}}
|A suspension bridge suspends its deck with cables or rods from a cable linked to a pillar and a point a certain distance from each pillar
|-
|Filler
|Real method of maintaining {{w|Grade (slope)|grade}}, not really a 'bridge'
|{{w|Embankment (earthworks)|Embankment}}, {{w|Causeway}} or even a {{w|Dam}}
|Serves the purpose of allowing travel across the gap, but by removing (or {{w|Culvert|mostly removing}}) passage through the gap itself. By filling the gap with hard, irregular material (most commonly rocks), support can be provided, while still allowing water to flow through the gaps. Due to the generally small size of the gaps, generally only slow-flowing water can reliably get through.
|-
|Budget Overrun
|Real (Absurd Name)
|{{w|Cable-stayed bridge}}
|Specifically, the pictured bridge is a {{w|cantilever spar cable-stayed bridge}}, similar in appearance to the {{w|Samuel Beckett Bridge}}. Many bridges in this category suffer severe cost overruns. Randall may be drawing upon his local knowledge of the {{w|Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge|Zakim Bridge}} in downtown Boston's {{w|Big Dig}}, also strongly associated with cost overruns.
|-
|Jump
|Not Real
|N/A
|A "bridge" that looks like it belongs in a skatepark. Iconically featured in {{w|The Dukes of Hazzard}} TV show.
|-
|Halfhearted
|Real
|[https://www.archdaily.com/184921/moses-bridge-road-architecten Moses bridge]
|Such a bridge exists at the {{w|Fort de Roovere}} in Halsteren, Netherlands.
|-
|Waterbed
|Not a bridge
|{{w|Waterbed}}
|Rather than a bridge, it is more like another version of a causeway (see 'Filler') using trapped water to maintain the upper surface.
Named for a 'mattress' type, which is usually a raised surface ''on top of'' a piece of bedframe, with an unusual approach to padding and comfort.
|-
|L'Engle
|Not Real
|[https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/03/192728/tesseract-definition-wrinkle-in-time-space-dimension Tesseract AWIT]
|References {{w|A Wrinkle In Time}} by Madeleine L'Engle. Characters cross great distances by "tessering", moving via a tesseract through a higher dimension which essentially brings the two ends of the journey together from the perspective of the traveler. The image shows the two ends of the gap being brought together, with the gap apparently crumpled in between them.
|-
|Fun
|Not Real
|
|It is a loop-de-loop, possible allusion to [[2935: Ocean Loop]].
|-
|Repurposed Elevator
|Real, but not as displayed
|Horizontal elevator / {{w|People mover|People mover}}
|There are various implementations of such designs, the best-known one is probably the {{w|Schmid Peoplemover|Schmid Peoplemover}}.
However, unlike a regular people mover, where the door stays upright, the image shows a regular elevator that has been rotated 90 degrees.
|-
|''(Title text)''
|Real
|{{w|Pontoon bridge}}
|Pontoon bridges are described as a series of fictitious "waterbed bridges", as shown above, but constructed without sides. This would mean that that the 'bed'-supporting water flows in one side and out the other, if there is any passage or tidal flow of water. It may technically mean that you cannot cross {{w|The Same River Twice|the same bridge twice}}.
Pontoons rely upon buoyancy, either of the whole deck or distinct floating elements, whereas an enclosed "waterbed" bridge would rely upon the strength of the membrane to keep the mass of water within it, and thus the deck above that mass.
|}

The title text humorously insists that a real {{w|pontoon bridge}} is a concatenation of fictitious "waterbed bridges", but without sides so that water flows in one side and out the other. It raises the idea that (arguable) real-world examples may yet exist for the later bridge types, emphasizing the absurdity of those bridges.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:Bridge Types

:[A 4x4 matrix of 16 ways to cross the same rectangular hole in the ground]

:Plank [shows a plank laid over the hole]

:Rope [shows a rope bridge with rope guardrail]

:Truss [shows a truss bridge with a triangular truss above the bridge deck]

:Trestle [shows a trestle bridge]

:Arch [shows stone arches supporting a straight deck]

:Suspended Arch [shows a single arch, with the bridge deck suspended from it]

:Draw [shows a truss bridge, with one half opened like an unrealistic draw bridge]

:Suspension [shows the bridge deck suspended from a cable strung between two pillars and the shores]

:Filler [shows the hole filled with dirt and stones]

:Budget Overrun [shows a bridge deck suspended by cables from an artistically shaped pillar]

:Jump [shows two ramps at the edges of the hole, and a skateboarder jumping across the hole]

:Halfhearted [shows a ramp at each side of the hole that leads down to the bottom]

:Waterbed [shows the hole filled with water, two fish and an octopus, a wobbly covering, and two stick figures crossing]

:L'Engle [shows the hole warped such that the opposite shores meet]

:Fun [shows a loop-de-loop rollercoaster bridging the hole, and a skateboarder using it to get across]

:Repurposed Elevator [shows an elevator tower, rotated sideways as a whole, laid across the hole. 2 stick figures using the elevator are also rotated.]

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Engineering]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:3097: Bridge Types

2025-06-03T07:57:31Z

Conster:

For budget overrun, see olympic stadium of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.202|162.158.126.202]] 01:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Very disappointed there's no bridge card game reference, but I guess that's not one of Randall's types of nerdiness :( [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.203|172.71.254.203]] 01:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to note that cable stayed bridges, budget overrun here, are much cheaper than equivalent suspension bridges. It because they use less materials and can be built faster meaning less labor. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.51|172.69.58.51]] 01:50, 3 June 2025‎
:Tru dat in general, but I think that this is a reference to the {{w|Leonard_P._Zakim_Bunker_Hill_Memorial_Bridge|Zakim Bridge}} in downtown Boston, part of the {{w|Big_Dig|"Big Dig"}} project that became notorious for its budget overruns and related shenanigans. Given that Randall M. lives in Boston, that makes this panel something of an inside joke. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.224|172.71.147.224]] 03:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The [[wikipedia:St. Louis Arch|St. Louis Arch]] is a repurposed-elevator-suspended-arch-but-without-the-base-and-wires bridge if you squint hard enough. The elevator is also fun. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.214|172.69.67.214]] 01:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing about a a [[wikipedia:Bridge circuit|bridge circuit]] or these [[Wikipedia:Bridges (disambiguation)|many]] [[wikipedia:other|other]] bridges either. Sigh. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.214|172.69.67.214]] 01:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:And where, oh where, are Lloyd, Beau, Jeff, and Jordan? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.84|162.158.41.84]] 03:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The L'Engle is a take off on a Wrinkle in time? But this one is in space? -- [[User:162.158.91.124|162.158.91.124]] ([[User talk:162.158.91.124|talk]]) 02:26, 3 June 2025‎ ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:There's some space-warping in L'Engle's books. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.63|162.158.174.63]] 02:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The "budget overrun" bridge doesn't really look like the Zakim bridge to me. It looks a lot like the Samuel Beckett Bridge in Dublin. I don't know what the budget of that bridge was, but according to wiki it cost 60 million euros, which sounds like a lot given that the bridge isn't all that long or wide. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.87|172.70.126.87]] 03:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps if Randall M. drew too close a likeness to the Zakim Bridge, he feared a visit from officials with lawyers and/or cement shoes. ("Only the paranoid survive ...") It seems, from a quick tour of the Internet, that words like "grandiose and overblown" are easily applied to cable-stayed bridge designs/aesthetics. I wasn't easily able to find information on budget overruns for these bridges, and see the commentator above who pointed out the lower costs overall of cable-stayed ''vs'' suspension bridges. But as a former resident of Greater Boston, I can report the pervasiveness of the Big Dig and its challenges, budgetary and otherwise, in local life and lore. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.108|172.68.22.108]] 04:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
::The cable-stayed bridge is the current darling of artists that accidentally went to engineering school, who are notorious for running over budget and behind schedule. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 04:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
: I can see the suggestion of the Beckett bridge, but in my eyes the obvious template would be [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmusbrug Rotterdam's Erasmus Bridge] [[User:Nachtvogel|Nachtvogel]] ([[User talk:Nachtvogel|talk]]) 06:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the repurposed elevator should be considered a dig at Elon Musks The Boring Company, even though they tunnel rather then bridge
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.182.138|162.158.182.138]] 04:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Added a bunch of explanations [[Special:Contributions/162.158.8.132|162.158.8.132]] 07:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The Repurposed Elevator is actually a real thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmid_Peoplemover It's not as strange as you think. It's a space effective, but too expensive solution to the problem of not making cramped railway crossroads more cramped. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.172.112|162.158.172.112]] 07:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

For the "Google Earth Bridge" remark, [https://www.fastcompany.com/90186315/the-strange-art-of-the-melting-bridges-of-google-earth this article] might work as a citation. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 07:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

3032: Skew-T Log-P

2025-01-02T14:10:59Z

Conster: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3032
| date = January 1, 2025
| title = Skew-T Log-P
| image = skew_t_log_p_2x.png
| imagesize = 569x626px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The most important quantity for meteorologists is of course the product of latent pressure and temperostrophic enthalpy, though 'how nice the weather is' is a close second.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by CHATGPT FOR SOME REASON - This needs an explanation. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic is a funny take on a {{w|skew-T log-P diagram}} (the name comes from the temperature (T) lines being skewed at a 45-degree angle, and the pressure (P) lines being logarithmic in scale). These diagrams are mostly used to plot {{w|atmospheric sounding}}s, which are usually made by sending a weather balloon up into the air.

Because the diagrams have a lot of lines on them (isobars, isotherms, adiabats, and mixing ratios, and that's before plotting the actual measurements of temperature and dewpoint temperature), they can be hard to understand if you haven't learned how to. The comic pretends to offer an explanation of how to interpret one such diagram (which may appear to have measurements from two separate weather balloons, one with two solid black lines for its measurements and the other with two dashed black lines, whereas the two lines and various styles of line generally mean different measurements from the same balloon-track), but most of the explanations are blatantly incorrect or humorous in nature.

{| class="wikitable" | style="background:#E6C3C3;"
!Item in comic
!Correct?
!Explanation
|-
| Pressure latitude || ||
|-
| Enthalpic pressure || ||
|-
| Entropic density || ||
|-
| Latent heat of cooling || ||
|-
| Isobars || || lines on a map denoting where equal air pressures exist when the map was composed.
|-
| Omnitrophic wind || ||
|-
| Isomers || No || different forms of molecules with the same formula, with the atoms or functional groups arranged differently. An example would be propanol, which has three. One of the most common isomers of propanol has its OH functional group in the middle, so is called isopropyl alcohol or isopropanol. 
However, these are actually iso'''therm''' lines, representing equal temperature.
|-
| Line of constant thermodynamics || ||
|-
| Uncomfortably moist adiabat || ||
|-
| Oops, the balloon flew through a ghost || ||
|-
| These lines are slightly different because Dave messed them up || ||
|-
| No birds up here :( || Yes* || This point is near the top of the diagram, with an air pressure of about 110 millibar (about 15 kilometers above sea level). This is well above the highest flight height of any known bird species. However, this information is irrelevant to the purpose of a skew-T log-P diagram.
|-
| Track of rising weather balloon || ||
|-
| Track of popped balloon falling back down || ||
|-
| Meteogenesis || ||
|-
| Seems bad || ||
|-
| Dew point || || The temperature at which water condenses out of the air, and therefore dew starts to form, given the level of water vapor in the air.
|-
| Heavyside layer || || Probably a misspelling of "Heaviside," the surname of the co-discoverer of what we now call the E region of the ionosphere. Co-discovered by Arthur E. Kennelly and Oliver Heaviside.
|-
| These lines are tilted because the wind is blowing them || ||
|-
| Don't stand here or you might get hit by a balloon || ||
|}

[[File:Annotated_Skew_T_diagram.png|thumb|An actual Skew-T Log-P diagram, with several real annotations.]]The true design of a Skew-T Log-P diagram is intended to best represent the nature of the weather in any given column of atmosphere. The pressure (vertical axis, with pressure being closely but not directly synonymous to altitude) is shown as a logarithmic scale (i.e. Log-P) due to the more practical separation of values. As height increases, relevent changes in the atmosphere also generally become more spaced out. A linear scale would create a 'busy' area at a lower plot and an effectively featureless upper stretch. The temperature scale is deliberately tilted, rather than orthagonal, which (together with the logarithmic nature of the pressure scale) allows the typical way that temperatures fall with altitude(≈pressure) to trend roughly vertically, give or take the notable changes that are key to understanding the forecast. Other measurement lines, differently skewed and often also curving across the temperature/pressure skewed-log 'grid', represent various other idealistic relationships (where both T and P vary, keeping another measure constant) that are useful references to meteorologists.

Upon this style of graph are plotted the ''actual'' measurements obtained by (e.g.) releasing a weather balloon. As well as the variation of actual temperatures and pressures, other retrieved data is plotted, such the {{w|dew point}}. The dew point is a function of how the humidity of the air interacts with any given temperature and pressure to produce condensation. By observing how the actual measurements and dew point line converge and cross, the development and nature of clouds can be tracked and pinned to specific cloud layers. Further details may also be included, such as wind-direction and wind-speed indications (often to the side of the plot) to give a visual cue about possible {{w|wind shear}} and/or to suggest which direction of adjacent weather-station readings may hold clues as to what changes may later blow in above the current site.

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

:How to Interpret a Skew-T Log-P Diagram
:[The comic shows a skew-T log-P diagram. On it are various labels, including isobars, comments, and other interpretations of the diagram.]
:[Left to the diagram is an upwards-pointing arrow with the label "Pressure Latitude". Right to the diagram is a downwards-pointing arrow with the label "Entropic Density". Below the diagram is a right-pointing arrow with the label "Enthalpic Pressure".]
:[The remaining labels are inside the diagram.]

==Trivia==

This comic is the first comic of 2025, having been posted on New Year's Day 2025.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Weather]]
[[Category:Charts]]

3032: Skew-T Log-P

2025-01-02T14:04:14Z

Conster: /* Explanation */

3032: Skew-T Log-P

2025-01-02T13:50:28Z

Conster: /* Explanation */

2870: Love Songs

2023-12-21T11:51:05Z

Conster: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2870
| date = December 20, 2023
| title = Love Songs
| image = love_songs_2x.png
| imagesize = 373x341px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Piña Colada song carves a trajectory across the chart over the course of the song.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LOVE SONG WHERE BOTH SIDES HATE EACH OTHER (AND THEMSELVES) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic shows an xy-chart of various love songs, graphed according to how the subjects of the song feel. The x-axis represents the narrator/singer's feelings for whomever they are singing to or about, from "No!!" to "Yes!!", while the y-axis represents the other person's feelings for the one singing the song.

{|class = "wikitable"
! Song !! Artist(s) !! Explanation !! Do I like you? !! Do you like me?
|-
| {{w|No Scrubs}} || {{w|TLC (group)|TLC}} || The narrator is the target of another person's affections but considers that person completely undesirable as a romantic partner. || No!! || Yes!!
|-
| {{w|That Don't Impress Me Much}} || {{w|Shania Twain}} || This song was referenced in [[984: Space Launch System]]. || Unclear/Neutral || Yes!
|-
| {{w|Cry Me a River (song)|Cry Me a River}} || {{w|Justin Timberlake}} or {{w|Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song)|Knight/Cocker/Wilson/Welch/Bublé}} || || No! || Yes!
|-
| {{w|We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together}} || {{w|Taylor Swift}} || At the start of the song, the narrator has spent a prolonged time in an on-and-off relationship with someone, repeatedly getting close to them before they distance themselves. As the song progresses, the narrator expresses their frustration with their partner and makes it clear that this time, ''they'' are the one leaving, and they're ''never'' coming back, no matter what their now-former lover says or does. || No!! || Yes?
|-
| {{w|You're So Vain}} || {{w|Carly Simon}} || This song has been [[1501: Mysteries|mentioned before]] in xkcd. || No! || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|I Will Survive}} || {{w|Gloria Gaynor}} || The narrator's partner left her to hurt her emotionally, only for her to eventually realize the abusive nature of their relationship and decide she doesn't need him anymore. As he tries to come back to her, she refuses to take him back and tells him to leave. || No! || No!
|-
| {{w|Somebody That I Used to Know}} || {{w|Gotye}} feat. {{w|Kimbra}}  || The narrator's relationship with his partner has ended, but he is upset that his former partner has since then broken off all contact with him. The third verse is from the former partner's point of view, and she claims she ended the relationship because he was emotionally abusive, instead of the narrator's claim in the second verse that they simply drifted apart. || Unclear/Neutral || No!
|-
| {{w|You Oughta Know}} || {{w|Alanis Morissette}}  || || No!! || No!!
|-
| {{w|Thank U, Next (song)|Thank U, Next}} || {{w|Ariana Grande}}  || || Unclear/Neutral || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|Teenage Dream (Katy Perry song)|Teenage Dream}} || {{w|Katy Perry}} (or {{w|Teenage Dream (T. Rex song)|T. Rex}} or {{w|Teenage Dream|others}}) || || Yes!! || Yes!!
|-
| {{w|Shape of You}} || {{w|Ed Sheeran}} (or {{w|Shape of You (Reshaped)|Beverly Knight}}) || This song is about being in love physically, and to a lesser extent, emotionally, to another person. The verses indicate that the love is reciprocated.|| Yes!! || Yes!!
|-
| {{w|I Will Always Love You}} || {{w|Dolly Parton}}, cover: {{w|Whitney Houston}} || || Unclear/Neutral || Yes
|-
| {{w|Call Me Maybe}} || {{w|Carly Rae Jepsen}} || This song/Carly in general has been mentioned [[2379: Probability Comparisons|so]] [[2198: Throw|many]] [[Challengers|times]] in xkcd. || Yes! || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|Killing Me Softly with His Song|Killing Me Softly}} || {{w|Lori Lieberman}}, cover: {{w|Roberta Flack}}, {{w|The Fugees}} || || Yes!! || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)|Girlfriend}} || {{w|Avril Lavigne}} (or {{w|Girlfriend (disambiguation)|many others}})  || The narrator is in love with a boy who already has a girlfriend, and spends the song trying to convince him to dump her so she herself can go out with him. || Yes || Unclear/Neutral
|-
| {{w|You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'}} || {{w|The Righteous Brothers}} || This song was featured in [[317: That Lovin' Feelin']]. || Unclear/Neutral || No?
|-
| {{w|You Belong with Me}} || Taylor Swift || The narrator has a crush on someone already in a relationship (implied throughout the song to be a toxic one), and lists various reasons why they would make a better partner. It's also worth noting that in the [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VuNIsY6JdUw& music video], the narrator's crush is actually on decent terms with them, rather than flat-out disliking them as the chart suggests.|| Yes || No!
|-
| {{w|Creep (Radiohead song)|Creep}} || {{w|Radiohead}} || || Yes!! || No!!
|-
| {{w|Escape (The Piña Colada Song)|The Piña Colada Song}} (title text) || {{w|Rupert Holmes}} || The narrator is stuck in an unfulfilling relationship and takes out a personal advertisement looking for a new partner. He mentions that he likes Piña Coladas (And getting caught in the rain). He responds to the ad and goes on the date, only to find out that the woman is his partner. They recognize that their relationship isn't as bad as they thought resulting in a trajectory from the lower left to the middle or upper right. || varies || varies
|}

The songs are all in this [https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0R1FWH3Hq4Ur08HSNSFtyf?si=WMD6u3QuThW7f2GXBTTJQA&pi=e-wEOR4pNmQ2Sp Spotify playlist].

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

:[Y-axis label:]
:Do you like me?

:[X-axis label:]
:Do I like you?

:[X- and Y-axis values (from bottom left):]
:''NO!!''; No; Unclear or Neutral; Yes; ''YES!!''

:[Top left quarter:]
:No Scrubs
:That Don't Impress Me Much
:Cry Me a River
:We Are Never Ever Ever Getting Back Together

:[Middle left:]
:You're So Vain

:[Bottom left quarter:]
:I Will Survive
:Somebody That I Used to Know
:You Oughta Know

:[Center:]
:Thank U, Next

:[Top right quarter:]
:Teenage Dream
:Shape of You
:I Will Always Love You
:Call Me Maybe

:[Middle right:]
:Killing Me Softly

:[Bottom right quarter:]
:Girlfriend
:You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'
:You Belong with Me
:Creep

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Songs]]
[[Category:Romance]]

Talk:2656: Scientific Field Prefixes

2022-08-09T08:13:29Z

Conster:

Interestingly enough, the last time I was at a dentist, I ask them if they had seen any research work on how to do dentistry in zero-g, like if you got a toothache halfway to Mars.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.56|162.158.107.56]] 01:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC) BCS

Comment on comment: there should have been work done on dental procedures aboard orbiting stations, and also on e.g. Antarctic bases. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.25|162.158.134.25]] 04:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Pär Leijonhufvud

Those who say that there's no such thing as High-Energy Theology should be taken with a pinch of salt. Or even a {{w|Lot's wife|Lot}}! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 02:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with Theoretical Theology. How much more theoritical can base theology be? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.198|108.162.250.198]] 02:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Beechmere

'Theoretical theology' is a tautology. So the first word is redundant.
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to conduct research on Marine Massage! How do I find the link? (Purposes.)
:We need another dimension for Theoretical Marine Massave [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "Marine dentistry" one appear to be a false positive: it contains the test string "...Marine, Dentistry..." in a list of possible fields where AR technology could be useful (Novakova, N.G., 2019. Innovation potential of augmented technologies in industrial context. Industry 4.0, 4(1), pp.24-28).
Also the "high-energy psychology" one was similarly a dud: student newspaper with a help wanted ad for a "high energy psychology student" (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217247671.pdf). The lack of manual curation of Scholar sometimes gives you these finds. Thirdly, Randall definitely searched with quote marks: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=marine+dentistry yields over 100 k results while https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%252C5&q=%22marine+dentistry%22 only yields one, with at least one of the former being papers on marine mammal dentistry (I have for practical porpoises no interest in dentistry, but I *want* to read https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119545804.ch11). In summary: by searching for the exact phrase Randall eliminated a large number of false positives, but also missed a large number of interesting papers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.157|162.158.134.157]] 04:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Pär Leijonhufvud

honestly I'm mostly worried about computational theology [[Special:Contributions/172.71.6.65|172.71.6.65]] 04:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
: It's a fairly common subject in science fiction. Fredric Brown's short story "Answer", for example. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some research into use of synchrotron radiation in treating cancers in the jaw. Doesn't that count as "high energy"? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

'High Energy Theology' sounds like an area of study extremely NOT conducive to the long-term survival of the human race. See this quote from the PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA:

'Mal-2 was once asked by one of his Disciples if he often prayed to Eris. He replied with these words: "No, we Erisians seldom pray, it is much too dangerous. Charles Fort has listed many factual incidences of ignorant people confronted with, say, a drought, and then praying fervently -- and then getting the entire village wiped out in a torrential flood."

We got ourselves into enough trouble when we split the atom. Gods only know what would result if we ever manage to split the thaum.

[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 06:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is the "explanation" someone nitpicking the search method (and mixing up the "former" and "latter" order of unquoted vs. quoted), rather than an explanation of the joke? [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 08:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2019-08-08T21:57:45Z

Conster:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)