explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2430: Post-Pandemic Hat

2025-05-08T06:40:36Z

Gatorized:

I did ''not'' get that the oval was supposed to look like a webcam; so this joke made no sense to me at all until reading the explanation. Thank goodness for explainxkcd.com!

How about just wear a shirt with a picture of oneself in a framed app window? To give people a familiar 2D face to make "eye contact" with, without staring into those creepy wet lenses which 3D faces feature. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Post-pandemic, I will still look at the hat first — because depending on what is written there, I might STILL ask that you keep at least six feet (or more) away from me at all times. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:I'll stand as close to you as I feel like.

: Apropo of nothing, the image of a bright red ball cap with the phrase "This is not a '''MAGA''' hat" printed on it flashed into my mind. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 18:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

iPhones XS or later with iOS 14 or later have the Eye Contact feature, which digitally alters your image during a FaceTime call so that your eyes appear to be looking directly at your caller. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.50|172.68.174.50]] 14:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This explanation made no sense to me, but maybe it's the comic (if the explanation is correct.) Does anybody actually look into the camera? I don't; I am always looking '''lower''' than the camera. I know that if I '''were''' to look into the camera, then everyone would see me "looking at them", but I can't avoid just looking at the face of whomever is talking on Teams or Zoom at the moment, because I need to see their face to better understand what they are saying - plus, it feels to me like I am making eye contact with them. But maybe it's just me? [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 13:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, also I feel the explanation should address the irony present for both the aforementioned t-shirts and this hat, due to the fact that in both cases people are going to be reading the words, and thus staring precisely where the words are telling them not to stare! [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 14:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:The shirts bit ''did'' mention that, I remember. Might have been edited out by a revamp. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.21|141.101.99.21]] 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't look at the video windows at all, and my work team just leaves cameras off. We look at the screen-share document or our own work while listening.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.175|172.69.35.175]] 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If both people are looking at their webcams to simulate eye contact, neither is seeing the other, so making eye contact is pointless.

Talk:2441: IMDb Vaccines

2025-05-02T06:00:17Z

Gatorized:

actual mental illness lol

So the Force doesn't protect you against COVID-19? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
: I haven't let my midichlorians near it enough to tell, and I worry it could be a mutation of somebody else's, but I suspect you need to meditate for a long time, and be on a mission of galactic hope, and then you'll be basically okay. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.212|162.158.63.212]] 02:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
What I got from this comic, after an initial laugh, was the realization that this has been going on long enough for something like this to develop into a hobby....[[Special:Contributions/172.69.170.120|172.69.170.120]] 04:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What's up with "Vader lives in that weird black egg thing". What is the black egg thing? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.108|141.101.98.108]] 09:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:A Hyperbaric oxygen chamber on his personal Star Destroyers. You see it in Empire Strikes Back when it opens up for a message. He can safely remove his mask there and breathe unassisted and meditate on the Dark Side or Padme. (~~The comment you have just read waa inserted, unsigned, by 162.158.166.55 several hours after the following answer.~~)
:A combination meditation-chamber, sterile disrobing room and medical support facility. It lets him periodically divest himself of the irritatingly confining but necessarily life-supporting suit components, get a degree of respite from its relentless enclosure, let him tinker with his various biomechanical replacement parts and take time out to think suitably dark thoughts about the Dark Side. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.6|141.101.98.6]] 11:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC) (PS: Oh look, almost the same IP!)

It's not explicit in the movie, but I would assume that other than Palpatine coming out to oversee the 2nd Death Star trap that Vader doesn't spend enough time in proximity to the emperor to count as a household. It seems like Vader is out with the 501st on either the Devastator or Executor hunting the rebel alliance, and Palaptine spends most of his time on Coruscant. Plus Vader would be fully enclosed in the respirator system any time they are together since the "weird black egg thing" is for when he's alone.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.218|162.158.212.218]] 16:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Deleted comment. Sorry for the accidental spam. [[User talk:Quillathe Siannodel|{)|(}]][[User:Quillathe_Siannodel|Quill]][[User talk:Quillathe Siannodel|{)|(}]] 15:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
*This tag is automatically added to new pages, which can be assumed to be incomplete. It's reasonable to remove it from an older page with a complete-seeming explanation, but probably not from a page referencing a comic that's been up for less than a couple days. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.160|108.162.241.160]] 18:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::Whoops, sorry. When I put these tags up, I was looking for WHY the comic is incomplete. The message should have emphasized adding a real explanation to aid would-be explanation fixers.
is ANYONE going to add ANYTHING about IMDb? i feel like that is a large chunk that is important for explaining the comic. on a semi-related note, why is the b in IMDb not capitalized? it is still part of the acronym Internet Movie DataBase, no? if you disagree that a letter in the middle of the word should be capitalized, then wouldn't it make more sense for it to be IMD? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.244|172.68.65.244]] 01:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Bumpf

: Well, "Database" is one word, which is why the "b" isn't capitalized. I agree with you about explaining IMDb, however, I'll added to the incomplete tag. [[User:Argis13|Argis13]] ([[User talk:Argis13|talk]]) 01:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

: I realized I didn't read your question properly, I guess they just thought IMDb sounded better, or something called "IMD" existed and they didn't want to get confused with it. Maybe the [[wikipedia:International Institute for Management Development]]?[[User:Argis13|Argis13]] ([[User talk:Argis13|talk]]) 01:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:: In circles where databases are worked with, it is always two letters. This makes it far more unambiguous what you are talking about. The two letters usually have the same capitalisation, not always uppercase. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.212|162.158.63.212]] 02:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:: I fully support the "IMDb" capitalisation. For the same reason I flinch at "MSM" (I may pointedly use "MM", though rarely does anyone notice/not assume a typo). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.208|141.101.99.208]] 02:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
:::You have to remember that IMDb is *old* - 30 years old. Like, pre-web, Usenet old. Modern naming convention need not apply. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.175|162.158.74.175]] 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I was never a reader of the original rec.arts.movies material (I was more an alt.fan.pratchett lurker) but I did reference the Cardiff Internet Movie Database (as jt was then) on occasion. I'm not entirely sure if it was immediately "IMDb" the moment it changed ('97?) or got bought up by Bezos, but it is indeed the official capitalisation/branding right now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.166|141.101.107.166]] 19:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

:If the Death Star doesn't count as a bubble, I don't know what does!

== Is it worth mentioning that Palpatine does survive? ==

The article says he dies, but he does show up again in Episode IX. However, since this is more of a revival, is it really worth mentioning? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.10|162.158.63.10]] 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

: Eh. Not really needed to explain this comic, and the comic says that he dies. I think that mentioning that "oh, later he comes back" would only confuse a casual reader. Also, no reason to spoil a movie that isn't mentioned in the comic.[[User:Argis13|Argis13]] ([[User talk:Argis13|talk]]) 19:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Rats! Your warning not to spoil the movie was so detailed that it totally spoiled the movie for me. Be more careful next time... please. [[User:WaxWamp|WaxWamp]] ([[User talk:WaxWamp|talk]]) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2459: March 2020

2025-05-02T05:54:08Z

Gatorized:

Take off your masks, bootlickers

Depending upon the local vaccine-tied gap between the two jabs, the span of time across those frames could easily be 12 weeks (1 actual month of stasis plus almost 2 more, that are not illustrated) or 8 weeks (1+1ish months between, then you may assume another unillustrated extra buffer after the second before 'normallity resumes'), making the resumed month correct after all. (Also, March being 31 days long, recycling it in a 'perpetual calendar' way would shift the month-boundaries over by ¿9? days, which might factor in. Although that'd make it hard to make it so the end of the final March ends exactly a day before the continuation-May is supposed to start for all, without some other finagling.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.166|141.101.107.166]] 05:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
:In the US, the two multi-dose vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, require 3 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively, between doses. Unsure of the reason for why there seems to be a "time jump". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.26|172.69.34.26]] 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
::I think the only reason there is only 15 calendars in stead of 17 is because he could then make a 3x5 grid. (A 4x4grid would also be one too little). And also I think it could have made much more sense to put on all 17 months, to avoid this confusion. But I do not think he has made 15 for any time reason. If he had done this in April, and made a 4x4 grid it would have been nicer, but then there would have been a standing Cueball in the first panel of the last row. But the last month would have been April which would fit with a year plus 4 months. But having the calendars months shift through the top row works great, which would not work in 4x4 grid. And since time stood still for Randall during those 14 months, then having 12 or 14 or 10 panels doesn't really matter. The important message is that time was at a standstill until May 2021. (He also needed 14 days after the last vaccine to be fully vaccinated). In Denmark where the AstraZeneca vaccine was taken out of use, after many had only the first shot, the second shot will be with another vaccine, and will be administrated 12 weeks after the first AztraZeneca vaccine. I know, I'm one of those that will have my second dose this way, in a few weeks time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else noticed all calendars seem to be empty, even the May 2021 one? -- Tobias [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.38|172.68.110.38]] 09:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Fifteen" days to slow the spread? More like 416+ (Yes, I'm counting...) [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 10:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the calendars be seen to represent Cueball's social life / social engagements? If so, pre-pandemic he had nothing going on. During pandemic, he (and everyone else essentially) had nothing going on. After full vaccination, he still apparently has nothing going on... Or, do the calendars merely represent time passing, and Cueball's life "froze" in March 2020, and only just resumed its normal flow following his second vaccination, making May 2021 his first "return to normal time flow" month?

There are not enough calendars. It feels like it has been March 2020 for about 10 years, so there should be about 40 more rows.

Not sure that {{W|MacGuffin}} is the best analogy to use in the explanation. As I understand it, a MacGuffin is just a symbolic item, with no function except as a goal. Whereas the vaccine has a clear function in controlling the pandemic and (in this case) allowing time to progress. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.164|162.158.142.164]] 18:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
:He's not saying that it's a MacGuffin in this case, but it's often a MacGuffin in the movie trope that the line is patterned off. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2486: Board Game Party Schedule

2025-04-29T02:26:53Z

Gatorized:

I've done the best I can starting this out. Since it's been years since I did gatherings like this, if someone can suggest more modern examples of complicated tabletop simulation games than the ones I suggested (Squad Leader and SFB started in the late 1970s, for heaven's sake), please do so. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.236|108.162.245.236]] 00:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Diplomacy? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.121|108.162.246.121]] 21:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

How about Seven Wonders? [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 04:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is why we always decide the game before inviting people. Then people can already head home before 11pm. To be more serious, the most complicated game that we played with novices was Eclipse with several expansions in a 9 player setup. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.160|162.158.88.160]] 07:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The classics for my home group with this are Kingmaker and Twilight Imperium. In fact to even suggest those we now have to plan a week or month ahead of time. [[User:Thaledison|Erin Anne]] ([[User talk:Thaledison|talk]]) 13:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A "simpler" game, like Catan or Dominion...?
Um. More like Scattergories, Scrabble, Sorry, Yahtzee, Apples to Apples, Uno, even Go Fish. Catan and Dominion might be relatively well known, but they are NOT simple. My experience is that the strategically-minded people who love immersive resource-allocation based games like Catan and Dominion are frequently open to learning new games, while the crowd that opts for "simpler" games typically just want to have fun without having to think too hard about stuff. (I say this as someone who loves immersive resource-allocation games, with a girlfriend who typically prefers the simpler stuff.)
Also, feels like Scythe deserves a mention, as a game that might be pulled out of a cupboard for game night but ends up taking hours to set up and explain. Whereas Warhammer players typically seek out their own, rather than casually springing their hobby on the general public. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 17:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
: Fair, although with my group what usually ends up happening is side games of Magic: the Gathering, and that's not simple, but it's quick to setup and doesn't take super long to complete. [[User:Thaledison|Erin Anne]] ([[User talk:Thaledison|talk]]) 13:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a not-a-COVID-19 comic. That said, just curious, why don't we include the title text as part of the transcript? Was a decision made some time ago to not include these, or have we just not been doing it for so long and no one questioned this until just now. [[Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1|127.0.0.1]] 19:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
:(Nice IP. *cough*) The transcript describes in text that which cannot already be read as text (without OCR, etc). The title-text is already in text form, reiteration would be redundantly repetitive. - Or so I've seen it explained several times before, and it makes perfect sense to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.105|162.158.158.105]] 03:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation. Also, why are you talking to yourself? [[Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1|127.0.0.1]] 17:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Because I'm the last human alive? [[Special:Contributions/10.0.0.1|10.0.0.1]] 23:60, 31 Dec 10,000,034 (UTC)
:Yes, I also believe that the title text should be part of the transcript. I have heard the explanation many times and the explanation makes NO sense to me. First, a transcript should be a full transcript, not just a transcript of what is in the picture. Second, Even if I was using a text reader, I would want to hear the title text after the elements in the picture are described, the same way that I experience the comic when I am reading it. First I process the comic then I hover over and look for the title text. Without the title text, it's like hearing the build up of a multipart joke without hearing the final punch line. So if a vote is ever taken, I would vote to start including the title text in the transcript. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
::If a vote is forced I (not that I would be taken seriously, as an IP) would suggest (and only in this option vote as more preferential than the status quo, if it's a nice sensible a preferential multi-vote voting system) "<IMAGE=autoimported> <TRANSCRIPT=manual> <TITLETEXT=autoimported> <EXPLANATION=manual> <etcs=...>". The problem with <IMAGE> <TITLETEXT> ... <TRANSCRIPT_INCLUDING_TITLETEXT> is that it'll be so easy to make two TITLETEXTs different, either through failure of importing (currently needs correcting or explaining away via hand-edit) or at some time inevitably messing up the repeat-write (if not the straight copypasta) of what is already there in a perfectly accurate version.
::Or just persuade Dgbrt to change DgbrtBOT (or persuade DgbrtBOT directly, if you can and don't have Dgbrt revert whatever it is that you do to do that) to dual-autopopulate. If you have success there, I suppose you don't need to win a vote, just go straight to the "half of the users are mad at the result" stage...
::Prob. not the forum for discussing all this. In fact I'm sure it'll be better somewhere in the Community Portal. I really must catch up on my reading in there. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.122|141.101.98.122]] 23:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the explanation is wrong. If you've played table-top games, a semi-complicated game like Catan or Ticket to Ride may seem simple. But the title says "Board Game" so I don't think explanation examples should be table-top games. In terms of "complicatedness", this comic is referring to the middle of the road: e.g. Checkers<Catan<Car Wars. {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.220|16:38, 9 July 2021}}
:Board games are tabletop games. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 02:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This timing is primarily because the game takes an hour to set up and an hour to explain, and those aren't being done in parallel. [[User:Solomon|Solomon]] ([[User talk:Solomon|talk]]) 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

== that was fast ==

this was my first time looking up the most recent comic on here (though it wasn't 'cause [I'm] dumb'... for once), and can I just say you all work really fast at getting a basic explanation written out. Your work is much appreciated by this student software dev :-)--[[User:Twisted Code|Twisted Code]] ([[User talk:Twisted Code|talk]]) 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2515: Vaccine Research

2025-04-28T06:06:41Z

Gatorized:

Too bad White Hat and Randall didn't bother to research the other half of the question. YES, vaccines work to save lives. But There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and you need to research *both* sides of any question, not just the side you agree with.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
: I really don't want this to turn into a long debate, but how do you know White Hat/Randall didn't find anything about the risks of vaccines? They never claim that and the fact that White Hat calls the vaccines "pretty good" instead of something like "perfect" would suggest he's aware of the downsides but considers the benefits to outweigh the risks. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 13:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
:: Since that's left ambiguous (deliberately?), one possible reading of the comic is as a joke on how "my own research" just reinforces prior beliefs, whatever they were. This reading doesn't play as well with the understatement in the punchline, though. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.157|172.69.71.157]] 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't trust the "scientists", so I decided to do my own research. Anyway, I need 5000 people for a double-blind clinical trial, so DM me if you know anyone interested.
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
: That's exactly where I thought this comic was going to go when I read the first panel. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.217|172.68.133.217]] 18:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
:It so happens that I did register to participate in vaccine trials. They didn't call on me yet, so I'm available. Reach out to the Coronavirus Prevention Network here: https://www.coronaviruspreventionnetwork.org/ and maybe I can be one of your subjects. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether I'd call Cueball's response "nonchalant", nor that there's any indication as to his motives being deceptive. I read it more as US-style "irony", or UK-style "understatement as intensifier". --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.157|172.69.71.157]] 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
: I read it as sarcastic, too. Perhaps the explanation should be updated. Sarcasm would also suggest that clearly White Hat doesn't know about the effort because they've spent so much time reading the already produced research on the "100s of Studies" [[User:Sem 1983|Sem 1983]] ([[User talk:Sem 1983|talk]]) 21:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
:: Yeah, I did that. Hope my rework didn't suck. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.193|108.162.221.193]] 21:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we tag this as a Tuesday comic, or as a Monday comic? This comic was posted on the site on Tuesday, but the "official publication date" per https://xkcd.com/archive/ says it to be 9/13 (Monday). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.183|172.69.34.183]] 22:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
:If Randall states it is a Monday comic I think we should leave it as such, but it could be stated in a trivia that the comic was first released on Tuesday. Do we know exactly when it was released, and was it for sure Tuesday all over the world at that moment? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::It was later than its usual timeframe (hello from the UK where the ''exception'' seems to be that "today's" comic arrives "today" - usually they're an hour or three post-midnight) but if Randall the same nonchanlent attitude towards waking hours as me then even post 5AM might be 'intended' to count... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.5|162.158.88.5]] 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::: The bot that posted this comic posted it at 11:00 UTC on 9/14 (Tuesday), which corresponds to 4am Pacific Time and 7am Eastern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.139|172.68.133.139]] 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::::And 1am Hawaii time. But still Monday near the date line where the US has possessions of small island. I have made a [[2515:_Vaccine_Research#Trivia|trivia]] about this. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Did Randall misspell “sheepish” or is there a subtle joke in the title text? It reads “sheapish” as of this comment. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.87|172.70.130.87]] 23:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
:Says "sheepish" at 03:22 UTC Tuesday. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::It also was the correct spelling when [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2515:_Vaccine_Research&oldid=218005 this page was created] by the bot here on explain. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::I’m feeling gaslit. May need to check my eyesight.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.209|172.70.130.209]] 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::::He he, maybe ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:I missed the use of "sheepish" on my first read, until this comment pointed it out. I suspect this is a reference to how some people refer to others as "sheep" for believing what experts are telling them. This should probably be included somehow. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::maybe a double entendre but I’m pretty sure Randall means the usual usage of sheepish - affected by or showing embarrassment caused by consciousness of fault [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.198|162.158.74.198]] 13:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::Agree with the usual meaning. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if this is related with some declarations{{Citation needed}} from rapper Nicki Minaj, unvaccinated, who, after becoming covid-positive, wrote in her Twitter that would leave music aside for a while to investigate by herself the effects of the vaccines. {{unsigned ip|172.70.147.165}}
:I highly doubt it, but maybe is you could give us a link? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Natural immunity is superior.

Talk:2557: Immunity

2025-04-27T16:56:24Z

Gatorized:

well, if you look at society as a whole it makes more sense. the reason we have so many mutations is that we have a significant portion of the populous with no immunity [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.125|172.68.110.125]] 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) mark ifi
:But the mutations come about from the virus replicating a lot, i.e in people with the virus. It still doesn't make sense to catch it, because you have a chance of your infection being the one that produces a terrible mutation [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.130|141.101.77.130]] 22:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::That isn't how mutations work. Mutations are able to propagate strongly only in environments where there is something killing off the parent species, and where the mutation provides better survivability. Like a functioning immune system attacking the parent virus, but a mutation allows something to slip by. Thus, people with the partial immunity provided by either vaccines or infection, are the ones more likely to create a mutation than new patients with no inherent immunity, or people with natural immunity from previous bouts with related diseases.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Luckily we have Randall's subtext to warn us about that middle category of people who know a little about how immune systems work, enough to be dangerous. (1) viruses are not bacteria: antibiotics killing 'ordinary' bacteria leave space for 'nasty' bateria to proliferate; unless you plan on destroying your respiratory tract, there's plenty of space for all viruses and their mutations; (2) viruses have a chance to mutate as soon as they take over a cell; no need to eliminate the parent, all you need is for the mutation to be more effectively infectious when spat out to infect the next victim; (3) anybody catching the virus will pass it on if it replicates; 'partial immunity' makes no difference to short-term reinfection, only to longer-term illness (at which point most sensible people will avoid contact) and ICU usage and death; the only possible negative to partial immunity is that people catch it, don't feel too sick and keep breathing over everybody else; (4) I suspect this comic will sound the death-knell for explainxkcd as it used to be, because even 'named' contributors are coming out with mad anti-vax arguments, and (5) editors, please feel fee to delete all of the above starting at (1) if you feel it to be necessary. I'd prefer you kept the first phrase though... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.196|141.101.69.196]] 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Even immune system without vaccine or prior infection is killing Covid a lot, providing plenty of opportunities for more effective mutation. And infection typically last LONGER if patient is not vaccinated, providing more TIME for virus to mutate. So, mutation can occur in both vaccinated or unvaccinated, with hard to compare probabilities. It's true that mutation from someone vaccinated has higher CHANCE to be vaccine-resistant, but on the other hand, seems omikron is from unvaccinated population ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see this one annoying a lot of people. It's the lot of people who can already be annoying, so I don't think that's a big problem. (A few, who misread it as about ''vaccination'' giving immunity, may actually think it supports them. I'm not sure we can do anything about that either.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85|162.158.159.85]] 21:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide a link to the "Mount Stupid" comic for reference.{{unsigned|172.70.174.119}}

mount stupid: https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475 ˜˜˜˜

To be fair, if the vaccination would only protect you for ONE infection it wouldn't be worth it. The idea about immunity is that immunity trained by either vaccination or infection will then protect you from '''multiple''' following infections. The problem with it is that in case of covid (or flu), the immunity wanes off with time AND the virus mutates into new variants the immunity doesn't work as well against. Sure, it still makes sense to vaccinate, but just because the virus spread so much you are very likely to catch it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
:Are you making the mistake (without the other baggage) I mentioned above about misreading the comic? This comic isn't about the vaccination at all. It's about infection. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::Infection is the normal method of vaccination. Until recently with mRNA vaccines, almost all vaccines were about infection- either with the disease itself, a weakened version of the disease, or a related disease.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, while some vaccines do use a weakened live virus, many use essentially sliced-up spike proteins that are unable to spread. However, historically, the first true vaccination (as well as the earlier variolization), did use an unweakened live virus (smallpox for variolization, cowpox for the first vaccination). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.213|172.70.130.213]] 16:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
:(And, to add, if the vaccine just protected against ONE infection, where that one infection was sufficiently dangerous, it would indeed be worth it. Better than chancing the infection on a naïve immune system and hoping to come out the other side with a similarly infection-specific immune effect (c.f. annual flu waves) but without the QC and care given to the vector.) ((See, I knew it'd spark response, didn't intend to say much. Maybe I should just stay out of this until it blows over.)) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 23:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::Of course it is about the vaccination - this supports Randall's earlier statements for being pro vaccine, that you should get the immunity from vaccination and not from infection! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::That's wrong, of course. Natural immunity is better. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 16:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmmm, no. It's about COVID (and that by inference). It doesn't mention the vaccine. The conversation ''might'' have been about the vaccine, but the comic (and its discussion of what it is sensible to do, or not) is vaccine free. It's "anti-infection", but not directly "pro-vaccine". (He, I and you ''are'' all sensibly pro-vaccine, I think. The comic itself is only vocal on that subject by omission and a chain of logic that will never occur to those stuck at the original fallacy.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

People who know a lot about the immune system could also be referring to people who are aware of possibilities like the varicella zoster virus which causes chickenpox, but stays dormant in your body after you recover and can come back later as shingles. This is less likely to happen if you get the vaccine to prevent chickenpox in the first place. --[[User:Norgaladir|Norgaladir]] ([[User talk:Norgaladir|talk]]) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A vaccination doesn't necessarily give you immunity, e.g. with the Covid or influenca vaccines, so you still can get infected. But being vaccinated reduces the risk of suffering complications like death that can ruin your and other peoples' life.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.229|162.158.94.229]] 07:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:...''significantly'' reduces the risk, in fact. It likely also (though it's a harder thing to establish) reduces the catch-and-transmit rate, thus yet another thing to do to help others, even those you'll never meet directly, who are unable or (ugh!) unwilling to think this far ahead. Unmitigated (and, especially, sought-after) 'natural' infection as represented in the comic just helps spread the thing further and faster and does a gross disservice to onward contacts, contacts-of-contacts, etc, etc. Excuse my preaching to the choir here, but it needs to be said. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::You're not preaching to the choir exclusively, plenty of lurkers (like me) are reading along. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

While trying to update the explanation for 'neutrality of tone' and address some infectious disease history, I came across this [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120728/#!po=44.6721|Highly Infectious Diseases in Critical Care] article
from the NIH published January 3 of 2020 which includes a comparison of smallpox, measles, SARS-1, and MERS-cov illustrating how significantly vaccination has reduced global infections. Check out the graph of measles from 1980. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.227|172.70.110.227]] 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

My hero is the person who added the citation needed to "Diseases are bad", as well as those who realize that vaccination is largely a form of infection on purpose (within one of the following five options: infection by the disease itself, infection by a weakened disease, infection by a killed and inactive version of the disease, infection by a related less dangerous disease that shares some characteristics with the original disease, infection by a laboratory created RNA strands that mimic the disease being attacked). Therefore, catching the disease on purpose, is a form of vaccination. Israel did a study on infection by the disease itself and found 6.7 times stronger immune response than other forms of COVID-19 vaccination. [https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital] [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:This should indicate that a better (at preparing your immune system to resist future infection) vaccine (process) may be possible. Without saying that current vaccines are ineffective. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.97|108.162.241.97]] 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:I like how you make sure to use the "laboratory created" modifier for the RNA vaccine, but not the other types. As if they all grew on trees or something. Here's a hint: all vaccines were created in a lab, though many were created more directly by modifying an existing virus, in that lab. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 21:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add that the comic criticizes only a part of ''anti-vaxxers'' population that show the circular logic presented. There are other parts, e.g. those who are not quite sure if the cost/benefit (or rather risk/risk) calculus is right for the rapidly developed and hastily officially approved (in comparison to long-established vaccines against other diseases) and/or novel (mRNA) vaccine products, fearing long-time side effects of the vaccine. On the other hand, long-term effects of the disease itself are also not known yet, even if some middle-term ones are known or being investigated already. There are still other parts like those who oppose governmental obligations or pressure to vaccinate against covid and related restrictions, and take the refusal as a personal freedom stance. There may be others. -- [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.219|198.41.242.219]] 15:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This very much feels like a straw man. I get that it's a webcomic, but can we talk about this? The description says that natural immunity is "short lived" (as in, how short-lived, and how much compared to vaccination?) but meanwhile I hear like one in five COVID hospitalizations were vaccinated patients. Are there studies on reinfection with COVID in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated patients? It seems to me from the latest comics that Randall is frustrated. I think everyone is frustrated. Citation needed, haha. But I get tired of reading "haha the other side is dumb" from both sides of every damn issue these days, and the bigger the impact an issue has, the more furious the mudslinging. One could, for example, make the same "circular argument" jab at trusting the FDA in this example, or in a more agnostic case, the value of a college degree or a certification: Ex. "we're qualified to make decisions about what's right or smart for the populace because we're a bunch of people who say so, and we have a pretty looking seal to prove it, and also please keep giving us a lot of money." I mean, for those of us who have been to college, haven't we all churned our way through that just to get into the workforce and discover that it's completely different than what we actually needed to know? Would we call people "anti-uni's" and laugh at their incompetence for questioning the system? Even at the unlikely minimum of "anti-vaxxers (or x-person who disagrees with me) are 100% dumb and wrong and that's a fact", isn't the discourse important? I understand that the opposite extreme is "I'd rather let my child die of Polio than trust another human being", but isn't that just another straw man? When are we going to stop polarizing? Thoughts?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.147|108.162.237.147]] 16:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:It might be Randall is (intentionally or accidentally) touching on your point by making this comic's thesis ambiguous. People who aren't thinking deeply about the topic on both sides will initially think it confirms their worldview, until they see more discussion on the matter. So the comic's ambiguity might prompt more discussion by and between both sides. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 17:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:Re: "I hear like one in five COVID hospitalizations were vaccinated patients." ....if less than one in five people are vaccinated, this is a problem. Either it means there is a problem with the vaccine (unlikely) or that the vaccinated are putting themselves more at risk thinking they are more 'virusproof' than they are. If more (and hopefully significantly more) than 20% of the populace are vaccinated then this is actually a positive sign for the whole issue - even if there's still social hubris underestimating the precautions they still may need to take.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::At least in the US, significantly more than 1 in 5 people are vaccinated. It's a little over 3 in 5 fully vaccinated. But I would suggest that even that isn't necessarily the statistic to look at - pretty sure covid is still more likely to be serious for older people and folks with preexisting conditions, all else being equal, and those populations have an even higher vaccination rate. 78% of folks 50-64 are fully vaccinated, and 84% 65+, per the CDC. So that makes the 1 in 5 represent *even less* risk.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.45|172.70.110.45]] 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: The "Why does my IP keep changing?" asked as an Edit-comment (see page history)... Because your gateway/pathway between yourself and the site goes through a limited and shared ''set'' of possible IPv4s. There's no guarantee you'll get the same IP (or even obvious range!) between edits, nor that your current IP won't be used by someone else in a few minutes. It's just a technical thing that greases the wheels of the Internet, even if it has funny repurcussions for some things like this.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"However, what Cueball (and by extension Randall) fail to note is that bad or not, there are plenty of instances where someone has already recovered, and therefore already in possession of natural immunity." - Isn't that what the comic is about? I'm confused as to why this is on the explanation page? --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think people are overcomplicating this. A common anti-covax trope you sometimes see is that natural immunity is "better than" the immunity provided by a vaccine. But it is a total non sequitur The *only way* the vaccine could prevent you from acquiring the coveted "natural" immunity would be if it saved you from getting infected in the first place. If you never end up infected, then I guess you didn't need the natural immunity after all. If you do get infected, well now you have it. There is no sense rushing out to get infected on purpose, which is the equivalent of refusing a vaccine. Of course, people can have many other reasons for not vaccinating, but this particular "reason" truly makes no sense.

To add to the pile: if you get infected, you don't have to *worry* as much about future infections. It's over with (at least psychologically). Balloon popping is bad, but it's the anticipation that's the worst part for me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.13|162.158.122.13]] 00:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
:That depends on if it's a "you only catch this once" thing. That's not so certain. Probably{{fact}} you can't catch a particular greek-letter-version twice, but you've got a dozen other (and potentially more later) greek letters to maybe/maybe-not fend off in future, with some variants clearly being able to at least possibly get past the protection (viral or vaccinal) that come from others.
:And they also say Omicron is only half as lethal (or hospitalising) as Delta, but that may just be because many Omicron-catchers had already made themselves infectees of Delta/whatever so they 'only' get the half-unsure vulnerability of the partially-naive/partially-protecting Delta-trained immume system of those that survived the prior round.
:And once you have more than twice as many Omicron infections because "it's not as bad as the other one", that still gives you more deaths than the 'more fatal' prior version. If you're thinking you're doing the Cowpox/Chickenpox thing of ''deliberately'' 'pre-infecting' yourself then you're just giving it more people to ''try'' to kill, yourself and any collateral infectees and (even if your individual chances are better, for whatever reason) it results in worse total statistics than if you'd been sensible until everyone possible had at least been able to be given a non-disease lesson in at least a similar-looking thing.
:...Oh, I don't think half the questions about all this have been answered, and won't be tied down for a while yet, but some supposed answers are clearly wishful thinking and should be easy dismiss as quackery. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Soooooo what's unfinished about this? It's almost a month old and the "incomplete" tag doesn't say anything descriptive about what needs to be done. And it looks pretty complete to me... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.57|172.70.230.57]] 07:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
:Depends on what people need. Some might understand it all, others might take more informing. (Not that I'd know how or if I should put it in the Explanation body, but there's [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60050996 situations like this] that illustrate potential complications to the viewpoint this is tackling.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to get jabbed with an experimental mRNA cocktail for a disease that almost certainly will not kill me...if it even affects me. How sure can you be of its efficacy when the experts didn't even know it would require multiple boosters when it was first available? The fact that almost all dissent toward "the narrative" is censored rather than argued makes me even more skeptical and determined. I'm sure we can all agree now that masks were almost completely worthless the whole time, right? But it's only now that we're able to even say that without fear of retribution. Anyway, this comic will NOT age well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.163|108.162.221.163]] 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
:Let's say it won't harm you, if you catch it (not a sure thing, but, let's assume you know this to be true). But you catch it, and pass it on to someone else, and thus you have hastened someone else's death. But it does not affect you, so never mind.
:As for mRNA vaccines being experimental, well they've been studied in humans for over 20 years, based upon a decade or more of prior trials, and have been theraputically used (for other things) for the best part of a decade. The general mechanism is well known.
:But still, tailoring it to deal with the very real new threat (though of course you can shrug it off like a mild hangover, I hear) was done very thoroughly, all the usual safety tests were done with haste but not rushed or skipped (just compressing the "dead time" usually inevitable between stages, except when pausing to rule out silly things like death by car-accident cannot possibly be connected to the study an individual took part in, etc).
:This did mean that they did not have the fuller information on 'immunity decay' (or, of course, how new variants might sneak around the protections provided) but boosters were always imagined necessary ''eventually'' to remind the body to look out for a half-forgotten or only partially matching pathogen signature. In part, the problem was whether to get boosters to people at the recommended interval (different for different products, but a few weeks to a few months was already suggested as of the first widespread injections) or to prioritise supplies towards first-injections in the wider population not yet previously having been called to be jagged.
:And you seem to be arguing about the mRNA vaccines, but seem not to have said anything about having had one or other of the other varieties (which ones will depend upon your locale, but there's now a wide range of them in most countries), so either you aren't aware of them or you're equally skeptical but only think you have arguments on that one type that you consider the archetypal demon-seed.
:And, as for arguments being censored, I know that plain wrong 'information' has been discouraged, to prevent the viral spread of dangerous lies, but here's me countering your points, arguing (or informing, I would prefer, but YMMV) vs. your frankly old-hat narrative that I certainly don't think should be deleted, but am happy to present (what I think is) more of a truth than your viewpoint is.
:And, no, I don't think the reaction to the Pandemic was done correctly. Often those in power made huge errors, but it could have been worse. Especially if no-one had had vaccines to be given, mRNA or otherwise.
:Have a nice life, and remember that you're still at some (perhaps small) risk of illness or death, as are your loved ones and others in your community. You perhaps don't need to be scared of it, but be cautious. Especially if you aren't vaccinated. And even if you caught an earlier version (knowingly or otherwise) and were personally lucky. Hopefully you never get to know that you were the reason for someone's fate, in one or other bad way. But be lucky! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.71|162.158.159.71]] 22:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

:It's not ridiculous at all. Once you've been infected, you can't get infected again. That is good and desirable. Is Munroe stupid? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 16:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2557: Immunity

2025-04-27T16:55:22Z

Gatorized:

well, if you look at society as a whole it makes more sense. the reason we have so many mutations is that we have a significant portion of the populous with no immunity [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.125|172.68.110.125]] 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) mark ifi
:But the mutations come about from the virus replicating a lot, i.e in people with the virus. It still doesn't make sense to catch it, because you have a chance of your infection being the one that produces a terrible mutation [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.130|141.101.77.130]] 22:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::That isn't how mutations work. Mutations are able to propagate strongly only in environments where there is something killing off the parent species, and where the mutation provides better survivability. Like a functioning immune system attacking the parent virus, but a mutation allows something to slip by. Thus, people with the partial immunity provided by either vaccines or infection, are the ones more likely to create a mutation than new patients with no inherent immunity, or people with natural immunity from previous bouts with related diseases.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Luckily we have Randall's subtext to warn us about that middle category of people who know a little about how immune systems work, enough to be dangerous. (1) viruses are not bacteria: antibiotics killing 'ordinary' bacteria leave space for 'nasty' bateria to proliferate; unless you plan on destroying your respiratory tract, there's plenty of space for all viruses and their mutations; (2) viruses have a chance to mutate as soon as they take over a cell; no need to eliminate the parent, all you need is for the mutation to be more effectively infectious when spat out to infect the next victim; (3) anybody catching the virus will pass it on if it replicates; 'partial immunity' makes no difference to short-term reinfection, only to longer-term illness (at which point most sensible people will avoid contact) and ICU usage and death; the only possible negative to partial immunity is that people catch it, don't feel too sick and keep breathing over everybody else; (4) I suspect this comic will sound the death-knell for explainxkcd as it used to be, because even 'named' contributors are coming out with mad anti-vax arguments, and (5) editors, please feel fee to delete all of the above starting at (1) if you feel it to be necessary. I'd prefer you kept the first phrase though... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.196|141.101.69.196]] 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Even immune system without vaccine or prior infection is killing Covid a lot, providing plenty of opportunities for more effective mutation. And infection typically last LONGER if patient is not vaccinated, providing more TIME for virus to mutate. So, mutation can occur in both vaccinated or unvaccinated, with hard to compare probabilities. It's true that mutation from someone vaccinated has higher CHANCE to be vaccine-resistant, but on the other hand, seems omikron is from unvaccinated population ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see this one annoying a lot of people. It's the lot of people who can already be annoying, so I don't think that's a big problem. (A few, who misread it as about ''vaccination'' giving immunity, may actually think it supports them. I'm not sure we can do anything about that either.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85|162.158.159.85]] 21:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide a link to the "Mount Stupid" comic for reference.{{unsigned|172.70.174.119}}

mount stupid: https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475 ˜˜˜˜

To be fair, if the vaccination would only protect you for ONE infection it wouldn't be worth it. The idea about immunity is that immunity trained by either vaccination or infection will then protect you from '''multiple''' following infections. The problem with it is that in case of covid (or flu), the immunity wanes off with time AND the virus mutates into new variants the immunity doesn't work as well against. Sure, it still makes sense to vaccinate, but just because the virus spread so much you are very likely to catch it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
:Are you making the mistake (without the other baggage) I mentioned above about misreading the comic? This comic isn't about the vaccination at all. It's about infection. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::Infection is the normal method of vaccination. Until recently with mRNA vaccines, almost all vaccines were about infection- either with the disease itself, a weakened version of the disease, or a related disease.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, while some vaccines do use a weakened live virus, many use essentially sliced-up spike proteins that are unable to spread. However, historically, the first true vaccination (as well as the earlier variolization), did use an unweakened live virus (smallpox for variolization, cowpox for the first vaccination). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.213|172.70.130.213]] 16:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
:(And, to add, if the vaccine just protected against ONE infection, where that one infection was sufficiently dangerous, it would indeed be worth it. Better than chancing the infection on a naïve immune system and hoping to come out the other side with a similarly infection-specific immune effect (c.f. annual flu waves) but without the QC and care given to the vector.) ((See, I knew it'd spark response, didn't intend to say much. Maybe I should just stay out of this until it blows over.)) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 23:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::Of course it is about the vaccination - this supports Randall's earlier statements for being pro vaccine, that you should get the immunity from vaccination and not from infection! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Hmmm, no. It's about COVID (and that by inference). It doesn't mention the vaccine. The conversation ''might'' have been about the vaccine, but the comic (and its discussion of what it is sensible to do, or not) is vaccine free. It's "anti-infection", but not directly "pro-vaccine". (He, I and you ''are'' all sensibly pro-vaccine, I think. The comic itself is only vocal on that subject by omission and a chain of logic that will never occur to those stuck at the original fallacy.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

People who know a lot about the immune system could also be referring to people who are aware of possibilities like the varicella zoster virus which causes chickenpox, but stays dormant in your body after you recover and can come back later as shingles. This is less likely to happen if you get the vaccine to prevent chickenpox in the first place. --[[User:Norgaladir|Norgaladir]] ([[User talk:Norgaladir|talk]]) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A vaccination doesn't necessarily give you immunity, e.g. with the Covid or influenca vaccines, so you still can get infected. But being vaccinated reduces the risk of suffering complications like death that can ruin your and other peoples' life.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.229|162.158.94.229]] 07:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:...''significantly'' reduces the risk, in fact. It likely also (though it's a harder thing to establish) reduces the catch-and-transmit rate, thus yet another thing to do to help others, even those you'll never meet directly, who are unable or (ugh!) unwilling to think this far ahead. Unmitigated (and, especially, sought-after) 'natural' infection as represented in the comic just helps spread the thing further and faster and does a gross disservice to onward contacts, contacts-of-contacts, etc, etc. Excuse my preaching to the choir here, but it needs to be said. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::You're not preaching to the choir exclusively, plenty of lurkers (like me) are reading along. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

While trying to update the explanation for 'neutrality of tone' and address some infectious disease history, I came across this [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120728/#!po=44.6721|Highly Infectious Diseases in Critical Care] article
from the NIH published January 3 of 2020 which includes a comparison of smallpox, measles, SARS-1, and MERS-cov illustrating how significantly vaccination has reduced global infections. Check out the graph of measles from 1980. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.227|172.70.110.227]] 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

My hero is the person who added the citation needed to "Diseases are bad", as well as those who realize that vaccination is largely a form of infection on purpose (within one of the following five options: infection by the disease itself, infection by a weakened disease, infection by a killed and inactive version of the disease, infection by a related less dangerous disease that shares some characteristics with the original disease, infection by a laboratory created RNA strands that mimic the disease being attacked). Therefore, catching the disease on purpose, is a form of vaccination. Israel did a study on infection by the disease itself and found 6.7 times stronger immune response than other forms of COVID-19 vaccination. [https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital] [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:This should indicate that a better (at preparing your immune system to resist future infection) vaccine (process) may be possible. Without saying that current vaccines are ineffective. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.97|108.162.241.97]] 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:I like how you make sure to use the "laboratory created" modifier for the RNA vaccine, but not the other types. As if they all grew on trees or something. Here's a hint: all vaccines were created in a lab, though many were created more directly by modifying an existing virus, in that lab. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 21:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add that the comic criticizes only a part of ''anti-vaxxers'' population that show the circular logic presented. There are other parts, e.g. those who are not quite sure if the cost/benefit (or rather risk/risk) calculus is right for the rapidly developed and hastily officially approved (in comparison to long-established vaccines against other diseases) and/or novel (mRNA) vaccine products, fearing long-time side effects of the vaccine. On the other hand, long-term effects of the disease itself are also not known yet, even if some middle-term ones are known or being investigated already. There are still other parts like those who oppose governmental obligations or pressure to vaccinate against covid and related restrictions, and take the refusal as a personal freedom stance. There may be others. -- [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.219|198.41.242.219]] 15:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This very much feels like a straw man. I get that it's a webcomic, but can we talk about this? The description says that natural immunity is "short lived" (as in, how short-lived, and how much compared to vaccination?) but meanwhile I hear like one in five COVID hospitalizations were vaccinated patients. Are there studies on reinfection with COVID in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated patients? It seems to me from the latest comics that Randall is frustrated. I think everyone is frustrated. Citation needed, haha. But I get tired of reading "haha the other side is dumb" from both sides of every damn issue these days, and the bigger the impact an issue has, the more furious the mudslinging. One could, for example, make the same "circular argument" jab at trusting the FDA in this example, or in a more agnostic case, the value of a college degree or a certification: Ex. "we're qualified to make decisions about what's right or smart for the populace because we're a bunch of people who say so, and we have a pretty looking seal to prove it, and also please keep giving us a lot of money." I mean, for those of us who have been to college, haven't we all churned our way through that just to get into the workforce and discover that it's completely different than what we actually needed to know? Would we call people "anti-uni's" and laugh at their incompetence for questioning the system? Even at the unlikely minimum of "anti-vaxxers (or x-person who disagrees with me) are 100% dumb and wrong and that's a fact", isn't the discourse important? I understand that the opposite extreme is "I'd rather let my child die of Polio than trust another human being", but isn't that just another straw man? When are we going to stop polarizing? Thoughts?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.147|108.162.237.147]] 16:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:It might be Randall is (intentionally or accidentally) touching on your point by making this comic's thesis ambiguous. People who aren't thinking deeply about the topic on both sides will initially think it confirms their worldview, until they see more discussion on the matter. So the comic's ambiguity might prompt more discussion by and between both sides. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 17:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:Re: "I hear like one in five COVID hospitalizations were vaccinated patients." ....if less than one in five people are vaccinated, this is a problem. Either it means there is a problem with the vaccine (unlikely) or that the vaccinated are putting themselves more at risk thinking they are more 'virusproof' than they are. If more (and hopefully significantly more) than 20% of the populace are vaccinated then this is actually a positive sign for the whole issue - even if there's still social hubris underestimating the precautions they still may need to take.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::At least in the US, significantly more than 1 in 5 people are vaccinated. It's a little over 3 in 5 fully vaccinated. But I would suggest that even that isn't necessarily the statistic to look at - pretty sure covid is still more likely to be serious for older people and folks with preexisting conditions, all else being equal, and those populations have an even higher vaccination rate. 78% of folks 50-64 are fully vaccinated, and 84% 65+, per the CDC. So that makes the 1 in 5 represent *even less* risk.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.45|172.70.110.45]] 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: The "Why does my IP keep changing?" asked as an Edit-comment (see page history)... Because your gateway/pathway between yourself and the site goes through a limited and shared ''set'' of possible IPv4s. There's no guarantee you'll get the same IP (or even obvious range!) between edits, nor that your current IP won't be used by someone else in a few minutes. It's just a technical thing that greases the wheels of the Internet, even if it has funny repurcussions for some things like this.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"However, what Cueball (and by extension Randall) fail to note is that bad or not, there are plenty of instances where someone has already recovered, and therefore already in possession of natural immunity." - Isn't that what the comic is about? I'm confused as to why this is on the explanation page? --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think people are overcomplicating this. A common anti-covax trope you sometimes see is that natural immunity is "better than" the immunity provided by a vaccine. But it is a total non sequitur The *only way* the vaccine could prevent you from acquiring the coveted "natural" immunity would be if it saved you from getting infected in the first place. If you never end up infected, then I guess you didn't need the natural immunity after all. If you do get infected, well now you have it. There is no sense rushing out to get infected on purpose, which is the equivalent of refusing a vaccine. Of course, people can have many other reasons for not vaccinating, but this particular "reason" truly makes no sense.

To add to the pile: if you get infected, you don't have to *worry* as much about future infections. It's over with (at least psychologically). Balloon popping is bad, but it's the anticipation that's the worst part for me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.13|162.158.122.13]] 00:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
:That depends on if it's a "you only catch this once" thing. That's not so certain. Probably{{fact}} you can't catch a particular greek-letter-version twice, but you've got a dozen other (and potentially more later) greek letters to maybe/maybe-not fend off in future, with some variants clearly being able to at least possibly get past the protection (viral or vaccinal) that come from others.
:And they also say Omicron is only half as lethal (or hospitalising) as Delta, but that may just be because many Omicron-catchers had already made themselves infectees of Delta/whatever so they 'only' get the half-unsure vulnerability of the partially-naive/partially-protecting Delta-trained immume system of those that survived the prior round.
:And once you have more than twice as many Omicron infections because "it's not as bad as the other one", that still gives you more deaths than the 'more fatal' prior version. If you're thinking you're doing the Cowpox/Chickenpox thing of ''deliberately'' 'pre-infecting' yourself then you're just giving it more people to ''try'' to kill, yourself and any collateral infectees and (even if your individual chances are better, for whatever reason) it results in worse total statistics than if you'd been sensible until everyone possible had at least been able to be given a non-disease lesson in at least a similar-looking thing.
:...Oh, I don't think half the questions about all this have been answered, and won't be tied down for a while yet, but some supposed answers are clearly wishful thinking and should be easy dismiss as quackery. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Soooooo what's unfinished about this? It's almost a month old and the "incomplete" tag doesn't say anything descriptive about what needs to be done. And it looks pretty complete to me... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.57|172.70.230.57]] 07:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
:Depends on what people need. Some might understand it all, others might take more informing. (Not that I'd know how or if I should put it in the Explanation body, but there's [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60050996 situations like this] that illustrate potential complications to the viewpoint this is tackling.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to get jabbed with an experimental mRNA cocktail for a disease that almost certainly will not kill me...if it even affects me. How sure can you be of its efficacy when the experts didn't even know it would require multiple boosters when it was first available? The fact that almost all dissent toward "the narrative" is censored rather than argued makes me even more skeptical and determined. I'm sure we can all agree now that masks were almost completely worthless the whole time, right? But it's only now that we're able to even say that without fear of retribution. Anyway, this comic will NOT age well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.163|108.162.221.163]] 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
:Let's say it won't harm you, if you catch it (not a sure thing, but, let's assume you know this to be true). But you catch it, and pass it on to someone else, and thus you have hastened someone else's death. But it does not affect you, so never mind.
:As for mRNA vaccines being experimental, well they've been studied in humans for over 20 years, based upon a decade or more of prior trials, and have been theraputically used (for other things) for the best part of a decade. The general mechanism is well known.
:But still, tailoring it to deal with the very real new threat (though of course you can shrug it off like a mild hangover, I hear) was done very thoroughly, all the usual safety tests were done with haste but not rushed or skipped (just compressing the "dead time" usually inevitable between stages, except when pausing to rule out silly things like death by car-accident cannot possibly be connected to the study an individual took part in, etc).
:This did mean that they did not have the fuller information on 'immunity decay' (or, of course, how new variants might sneak around the protections provided) but boosters were always imagined necessary ''eventually'' to remind the body to look out for a half-forgotten or only partially matching pathogen signature. In part, the problem was whether to get boosters to people at the recommended interval (different for different products, but a few weeks to a few months was already suggested as of the first widespread injections) or to prioritise supplies towards first-injections in the wider population not yet previously having been called to be jagged.
:And you seem to be arguing about the mRNA vaccines, but seem not to have said anything about having had one or other of the other varieties (which ones will depend upon your locale, but there's now a wide range of them in most countries), so either you aren't aware of them or you're equally skeptical but only think you have arguments on that one type that you consider the archetypal demon-seed.
:And, as for arguments being censored, I know that plain wrong 'information' has been discouraged, to prevent the viral spread of dangerous lies, but here's me countering your points, arguing (or informing, I would prefer, but YMMV) vs. your frankly old-hat narrative that I certainly don't think should be deleted, but am happy to present (what I think is) more of a truth than your viewpoint is.
:And, no, I don't think the reaction to the Pandemic was done correctly. Often those in power made huge errors, but it could have been worse. Especially if no-one had had vaccines to be given, mRNA or otherwise.
:Have a nice life, and remember that you're still at some (perhaps small) risk of illness or death, as are your loved ones and others in your community. You perhaps don't need to be scared of it, but be cautious. Especially if you aren't vaccinated. And even if you caught an earlier version (knowingly or otherwise) and were personally lucky. Hopefully you never get to know that you were the reason for someone's fate, in one or other bad way. But be lucky! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.71|162.158.159.71]] 22:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

:It's not ridiculous at all. Once you've been infected, you can't get infected again. That is good and desirable. Is Munroe stupid?

Talk:2572: Alien Observers

2025-04-27T16:46:39Z

Gatorized:

This is my first explanation, i know it is really bad but i wanted to give it a go[[User:ElijahRock|ElijahRock]] ([[User talk:ElijahRock|talk]]) 20:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:Great you are helping. Often easier to continue and improve existing explanations rather than start as you did from scratch. Even if most of the original version end up getting changed. I make alot of edits but rarely begin the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::thanks! glad i could be helpful [[User:ElijahRock|ElijahRock]] ([[User talk:ElijahRock|talk]]) 16:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to track each human individually, I was under the impression that it was a "before and after" picture. - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.153|172.70.130.153]] 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:I think they ''both'' track humans individually, and that this is a (representative) before-and-after picture. They probably have minions/computers/whatever continuously updating the actual flight-boundaries as people move around (and go into camera/phone/cameraphone stores and come out with something new) but this is a 'management briefing' that extraordinarily reports this otherwise mundane development as an individual matter, with a visual aid to make the report sink in. Just going to show how aliens can be both so alien and yet amazingly human in their bureaucratic minutiae. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::What I was trying to say is that they don't actually keep track of which phone any random person has (or alter their flight path respectively), it's just a matter of "this is the furthest human technology can go". - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.122|172.70.131.122]] 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
:::I think they ''do'' track everyone's individual capabilities. (They're that good at observation!) That's why they're so specific about what two individuals have done to upgrade their media capabilities. On the other hand, I think the on-screen image is just a representative diagram, rather than real-time/real-geography with real UFO positions - but it depicts the effective alterations of approach distances that this person's now 'toy' has enforced upon these Little Green Voyeurs. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 00:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Feels like this is a partial rebuttal of https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1235:_Settled [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 23:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:Didn't see your comment, before, but added this link myself in my own way. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
:: cheers [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that Randall is also referring to the fact that all footage of "UFOs" show them flying erratically. This being due to the fact that this is the way refraction works. Sorry for the bad English, not sure how to explain it :) EDIT: It could also refer to the fact that a lot of people still believe in UFOs even though this is a well-known phenomenon that is known to be the cause of a lot of these sightings. As I said below though most of these kind of sightings are reported by pilots flying at high altitudes, so now I'm not sure...[[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 23:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:(Ditto above, didn't see this before starting editing, but...) I put it down to zoom-wobble in what I just inserted. Though didn't say that this is just normal (acceptable) hand-wobble augmented by the zoom needed to frame the distant whateveritis. Yes, rapidly changing refraction through moving air is probably also a thing (usually heat haze during the day, or the subtler stuff that astronomical telescopes have to deal with at night with lasers and adaptive optics and/or electronic post-processing) but I'm happy to leave it at zoom-wobble without going back and adding your suggestion. Do edit it if you feel like it, though, that being how this site works. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

:: The zoom-wobble is a great explanation! I didn't think of that at all :P However, there's lots of footage that exists from non-zoomed, fixed cameras like security cameras and 8 mm film cameras on tripods, which sort of obviates that explanation. But also, I did a quick search for footage like that and it looks nothing like refraction phenoma (at least the examples I could find) so my explanation isn't quite correct either. I think those kind of sightings are mostly reported by pilots at high altitudes, as those are more likely conditions for this to happen. I'm still leaning more towards my explanation than yours for now though:) I'm going to leave this here for now and wait for more discussion before I change anything [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Zoom is a misnomer for the lens setups modern phones come with. As an example, the Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra does not have any zoom - it has three distinct cameras, each with their own prime lens. You can switch between the cameras, but this is not zooming. [[User:Paul-Simon|Paul-Simon]] ([[User talk:Paul-Simon|talk]]) 13:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added that "Human 38XT11" is a reference to THX 1138... anyone who can spot something similar with Human 910-25J-1Q38 or B-C54? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
:1Q38 can be seen as the 1st quarter of 2038, also known as {{w|Epochalypse}}.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.177|162.158.202.177]] 11:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1Q84 1Q84] is the title of a novel by Haruki Murakami. The meaning of the title is the year 1984, since 9 in Japanese is ''kyū''. So perhaps 1Q38 is code for 1938? [[User:Entropy|Entropy]] ([[User talk:Entropy|talk]]) 14:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
:Can't they just be random numbers that Randall decided to use? Why does everything need to be a reference to something? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.205|172.70.206.205]] 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::people like to see patterns even if there are none[[User:New editor|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor|talk]]) 21:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::If Randall had chosen them randomly, they'd both [[221:_Random_Number|have ended up]] as "4444-4444-4444-4444"... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 20:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::I agree that some of the numbers may have been chosen randomly. But with Randall, being fan of Starwars, and often putting in funny references, I cannot imagine he would manage to put in the letters from THX1138 numbers in the first part of the first humans code, by a random coincidence, it is just too unlikely. But that doesn't mean the other numbers need to reference anything. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get why starting a YouTube-channel should have any impact on flying patterns because it's the filming and not the publishing that is the problem. The videos shown on that particular channel can be years old so the erratic flight behavior should take place as soon as a human has the capability to '''shoot''' a video rather than '''publish''' it. [[User:Kimmerin|Kimmerin]] ([[User talk:Kimmerin|talk]]) 08:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
:Maybe the aliens is [[:Category:Alien Visitors|not that bright]], just good at technology, I still don't get the lines spoken by the other alien and the reply to that. It makes no sense to me. As with the title text. Agree that it makes no difference to have a channel. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:I disagree - aliens in popular media *constantly* present themselves to only one or a small number of people, with the expectation that those people will not further reveal their presence on earth (or even with the [https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Teaser deliberate intention of making them appear foolish to others!]). [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

These aliens need to do a better job of tracking human technology. One camera, the [https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/compacts/nikon_cpp900 Nikon P900] has an optical zoom ratio of 83x and a digital zoom of 166x. They should have made flight compensations immediately upon its product announcement back in 2015. Or at least upon its consumer rollout in 2017, not after the fact. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 04:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the UFO pictures are blurry because the UFOs themselves are, well, fuzzy. Though what benefit could be had by making a spacecraft covered in wool, with density dropping with distance from the hull, is beyond me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.135|172.69.34.135]] 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:Insulation. It's very cold, in space (or very hot, depending on if the nearest star is shining on one side from close enough). And possibly they have to enter the atmosphere just like our craft have to re-enter it. It'd be unobtanium wool, of course! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.89|162.158.186.89]] 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::Space isn't cold.

Talk:2579: Tractor Beam

2025-04-27T16:39:11Z

Gatorized:

This feels a lot like a SMBC outtake. (In a good way.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.147|172.70.110.147]] 20:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
:This reads like a bash.org comment. (In a good way.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.221|172.70.126.221]] 21:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

So, if I were rising in a tractor-beam, I think there'd be clues as to the scope of the effects. Are my clothes hanging off me, floating round me or am I being upwardly cradled by them? Do I feel like I'm standing on something, hanging upside-down by my feet (from a topsy-turvey horizontal) or freefalling? What's my inner-ear telling me? Is the air around me rushing up, feels still (even though I'm moving vertically through it) or is it like I'm being raised up through it? Does the air feel like treacle, can I push against it, angle my arms to spin in the 'wind' like with indoor freefalling? Does any lateral wind still pass by as it did before the beam (small adjustments for being away from ground-effects, allowed for) or swirl oddly laterally or vertically? Is anything in the air (bat or smoke or rain or whatever dust I kicked up as I scrabbled for footing upon the first surprise of being tractored up) going up or down or neither, or revealing eddies? A bat, or anything else that flies, is going to have excess lift until any confusion (again with the inner-ear?) stops it from using its wings to counteract any non-existent 'weight' element, if applicable. If I hold one hand atop another (easier to experiment with, and switch over, than feet being below my torso, especially if I can't control attitude) do I feel a 'force shadow' where levity does not pass and/or gravity from below is no longer nullified/negated? Am I held as vertically (or similarly, perhaps can adopt a 'seated' poise) or am I unable to hold my attitude/able to change it? ...And loads more obvious things to potentially experience, depending upon how I deal with the first few tests and how quickly I can form less open-ended and more practical/emperical theories about what all I have started to learn means... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68|172.70.86.68]] 21:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
:Hypothetically, Cueball might be being moved by forces similar to the one causing [https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677 this] - levitation would be an amazing thing to have --[[User:Char Latte49|Wielder of the Staple Gun]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting that Randall has been creating a string of comics on UFOs recently. Wonder if he knows something we don't? Jokes aside, it's interesting to see how his brain works, exclusively from a creative-output perspective. The string of UFO comics must be related to something that he experienced in his life recently. Similar to his cursed connectors run a few months ago: one can only wonder what weird, jerry-rigged solution he needed to some frustrating problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.245|172.70.110.245]] 01:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
:There has been a lot about UFOs spotted by the US Airforce, I think? I still don't believe it's aliens... [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-never-aliens-until-it-is/ It's never Aliens] ;-) I guess once he get's one idea for a specific comic, then this may easily spawn other ideas. So I'm not sure there are any particular reason he got the first idea, but that may explain the others that followed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's imagine that a bat between the UFO and Cueball creates a shielding effect from the tractor beam. Part of Cueball would feel the traction but others not. He could be torn apart! Poor Cueball.
:If not the part of his body that is not attracted simply goes along with the actively pulled parts, like when you lift a baby in its armpits.
:[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 12:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it is Randall, not Cueball, as it is "me" in the caption. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.232|162.158.187.232]] 12:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:Most comics could feel like Cueball is Randall. But when you see a person speaking in the comic, then it is that person that says set me down, in the caption. So I would still just say it is Cueball not Randall. Also I'm sure he has not been pulled up by traction beam... And even if this is how Randall would react in case of an abduction (I doubt it) he typically let Cueball have these far out reactions. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What gets me is how Cueball will enter the hatch. If it's far enough 'into the drawing' to make it a person-sized hatch then the projective cone would shine an eliptical slice along the ground forelengthened far morenthan our viewpoint foreshortens it, so its major axis would be (on the image) vertical, not horizontal. For that ground-footprint, it's a smaller, closer craft. Still large, but the hatch is smaller than Cueball. Clearly, then, the tractor-beam is ''only'' used to raise the chosen subject off the ground, because (unlike the anti-gravity/levitation beam) the transporter-technology they actually use to ultimately bring a chosen subject into the ship itself ''cannot'' distinguish between a person and the ground they might be standing on. Risking either injurious impediments to the one being transported or tearing up some ground with them. (Leaving either foot-filled shoes or a 'divot' in the ground, to shock and/or excite those who discover the evidence of the abduction, and causing a mess for the aliens inside the vessel... either way.) This is clearly the only logical conclusion we can make. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 13:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
:Maybe the hatch would just open up when he get's close...--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
:What does it get you? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 16:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

For me the first two questions are obviously linked to the tractor from the headline. Cueball is thinking about using the tractor beam of the UFO to plow a field. Thus he wants to know why the dirt is not being pulled up with him. I'm surprised this is not mentioned, so I might be totally wrong here. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.246.109|172.70.246.109]] 11:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
: Don't believe "tractor beam" has anything to do with a farming tractor. From Wikipedia, it says that "tractor beam" is short for "attractor beam". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.82|172.69.34.82]] 17:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
:: However, xkcd is known for word play and for purposefully misunderstanding words with more than one meaning in the wrong context. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.221.39|172.68.221.39]] 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
:::For sure but I'm quite sure the current explanation that Cueball wonders how the beam knows only to pull at him and not at anything else that is inside the beam, as his bat question reveals. If anything in the beam would float towards the spaceship then anything loose on the ground should follow Cueball. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If he had been brought onboard the alien ship, I'm sure they would have still returned him sometime around the 25th time he asked, "Aren't we there yet?" – [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2609: Entwives

2025-04-27T01:39:54Z

Gatorized:

This seems like one of the earliest-released comics in recent history [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 14:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There seemed to be two versions of the title text; on mobile, there is a youtube link visible, but this is not present on my chrome desktop view [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 14:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

: The comic is a link, like [[1017: Backward in Time]] and many others. Many Android browsers simply choose to show the target URL beneath the title text. The YouTube URL is not part of the title text, on a PC you can just click the comic to open it. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
: My Android phone is too old for me to attempt this, but on my iPad if I tap and hold an image I usually get the mouseover text, but this time it only shows the link and gives me a menu for what to do with it. (I usually just get the mouseover text here, on THIS site). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
:: My personal experience (not a very recent Android, I think it's browser-specific and I habitually use two different browsers on here so I can test that later, maybe) is that, for this comic, I get the mouseover text (truncated with an ellipsis… as usual for any titletext that's longer than not-very-long-at-all — which is why I also always pay attention to this site, primarily, rather than the original, until I discover that there's direct bonus-stuff to drinking from the true source) plus the youtube URI, and then various choices of copying/saving/etc various things (image, link, link-text, target... I forget exactly what, but around that area) with various usefulnesses-or-not in this context.
:: For a 'normal' comic, the long-hold just tells me the "titletext…" with its probable truncation and a slightly different set of options regarding mostly opening the image in a new tab/etc. Again, between testing that and writing this I've let the exact details slip from my mind, but YGTI... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 15:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The mouseover text in android devices is this youtube link - [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt2qCjL6-n4]] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt2qCjL6-n4 [[User:DefectedWBC|DefectedWBC]] ([[User talk:DefectedWBC|talk]]) 14:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Is LotR the lowest scoring major motion picture on the {{w|Bechdel test}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 14:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

:Unlikely, depending on how you define major motion picture.

:Some major films do even '''worse''' on the Bechdel scale than the ''Lord of the Rings'' films, which at least had three memorable, prominently credited female roles. ''Lawrence of Arabia'' had no actresses credited in the cast list. ''Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'' had no actresses credited in the cast list, nor does IMDb list any uncredited actresses for it. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.33|172.70.178.33]] 19:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

:There's no such thing as 'lowest scoring' - it's framed as a pass/fail test.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.203|172.69.79.203]] 11:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
::I would still be inclined to say it fails more. :) It's further from a pass than some.[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out in YouTube’s comment section, the video seems to be a joke, not ''actually'' the only female interaction in the films. [[User:Chortos-2|Chortos-2]] ([[User talk:Chortos-2|talk]]) 14:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

:In response to Chortos-2 comment, I would think a slight edit for accuracy along the following lines -- instead of "a video showing" change to "a video that purports to show". As they discuss, the point still stands, but the added accuracy would hurt, would it? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.251|172.70.114.251]] 15:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)newbie

Gender imbalance among readers and viewers of lotr as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.53|172.70.230.53]] 14:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's weird that nobody's brought up that this is an Ent comic on 4/20. For context, reddit.com/r/trees (the weed subreddit) has an in joke where they call themselves ents, basically. [[User:Bazzherb|Bazzherb]] ([[User talk:Bazzherb|talk]]) 15:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
: How is the date significant? "Weed New Year", okay, but just because they're both plants??[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So who is the third hobbit supposed to be? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.38|162.158.203.38]] 15:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
:With the caveat that (by movie standard reference) the hair colours are inverted — there is one dark-haired hobbit and three light(er)-haired ones — I'd say Pippin - if he's the taller one of the sidekick pair like I think he is, rather than Merry. But I can't guarantee the first two are Frodo and Sam (or which is which is which) because fairer-haired Sam is taller than dark- (and spiky-)haired Frodo in the reference cast photos I've just checked. (The necessary on-film rescaling/standing-in-a-hole of non-midget actors to play hobbits/dwarves might complicate these group tableaus!) Perhaps they are all Hobbits Of Another Story, coincidentally in a fellowship with another generic Human, Dwarf and Elf. Or else drawn more faithfully to the book (which I have yet to check) than the film adaptation? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177|172.70.85.177]] 16:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
::But Frodo and Sam separated from the Fellowship before they encountered the Ents.[[User:DaBunny42|DaBunny42]] ([[User talk:DaBunny42|talk]]) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I think this is important enough to mention in the explanation. Maybe they met the Ents later, when Frodo and Sam had returned, but this seems like earlier. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:It is not a third hobbit. It is Gandalf: He is a conjurer of cheap tricks and can normally make himself larger, but the Ents can see right through him. That is his natural size depicted. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.231|172.70.250.231]] 06:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering Arwens and Ents age, I would actually suspect that yes he totally knows her. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
:My first thought was that, especially with both races having an interest in trees... But then I decided that their opposing views of trees (habitat vs livestock) might have encouraged a natural racial separation, or at least less likely to socially mix over the millenia. (Not that I wrote the text in support of it being a good excuse, I just post-hoc rationalised what I read. ;) ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.211|172.70.85.211]] 19:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"...one of the United States' two neighboring countries..." What about Cuba, the Bahamas, Russia, etc.? Just because there is no land border doesn't mean there is no border. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
:Yeah, it kinda does mean there is no border, at least in those cases. All are well outside the 12 mile zone of territorial sovereignty.[[User:DaBunny42|DaBunny42]] ([[User talk:DaBunny42|talk]]) 00:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::No, the U.S. definitely has borders maritime borders with Cuba, the Bahamas, and Russia. (I can't support the "etc.", however - it's just those three, plus the maritime borders with Canada and (trivially) Mexico as well.) I will fix the text proper.[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 01:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I think saying Canad and Mexico as the countries that borders US is the normal way to see it. Yes it has borders over sea. But who cares. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:::You're forgetting about Guam, PR, US VI, N Mariana Isl., and American Samoa are part of the USA and DO have water borders with other countries or foreign territories. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:::There is an exclave of Great Britain on the big island of Hawaii (Captain Cook's grave) so we have a land boarder with Great Britain too.
:Sorry, "border" and "neighbour", as verbs, mean land only. Water borders aren't significant and are the whole reason for these verbs. If water counted, the U.S. borders the U.K.! The point is if you can change countries by foot and/or vehicle. Also, "bordering the U.S." implies the Continental U.S... Again, territories wouldn't be a significant statement.[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Was the lack of women in the fellowship because of "the cultural biases of the era in which the novels were written", i.e. a novel writing trope? It would it be more accurate to say [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_and_Middle-earth the series is influenced by Tolkien's personal experience of fighting on the front lines in World War I.] Women were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_I an important part of the war effort,] but were not permitted to fight as soldiers on the front line. If you still want to count that as cultural bias, it would be the war-waging cultural biases of the 1900s/10s that left millions without their fathers, brothers and sons, rather than novel-writing cultural biases of the 1940s. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 19:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
: I don't know, but the {{w|Witch-king of Angmar}}'s over-confident boast to {{w|Éowyn}} wouldn't make as much sense if Middle-Earth armies were routinely populated by both women and men. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 10:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
:: Well, I always read that as hubris from too-widely interpretting an actually much narrower 'certainty.
:: (Was that a thing Sauron told him, back in the day when he was 'recruited'? "Yeah, sure, you're now protected from all men, m'kay?", but it was taken as "...protected from all of mankind, I mean, like ''totally'' dude!" Maybe even Sauron thought this, but didn't go through the source-code of the enchantment he was using to bugcheck what exceptions might kick up if encountering objects of type "emmancipated warrior-maiden" or "uppity halfling with a mildly magical barrow-blade", rather than the usual ''isMan()''-satisfying objects. But, even then, just either interaction on its own could have been handled by other innate skills and/or powers, as may have happened in times past but turned out Ok for the guy, whether he knew it or not. It was a combinatorial race-condition, though, that set higher-order bits in the register that had never occured together before now.)
:: It's a bit like "when Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane". In the absence of Ents (Shakespeare didn't use Ents so much, in his plots!), the assumption was that this was "it'll be a long, long time, no need to worry", rather than "all it takes is for a good opponent to suggest his army use a bit of basic camouflage to get closer". Not so much "it won't ever go badly unless this happens" as "when it goes badly, this will have happened", filtered through a Cassandra Truth that the listener doesn't even get to fully appreciate before it's too late. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 15:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

My initial reaction to the conversation between Treebeard and Aragorn was that Treebeard was about to become angry and possibly violent due to sexual envy, if he suddenly finds out that all other races in Middle Earth are enjoying normal sexual relations with eachother. A less likely outcome would be that Treebeard and his chums are all quite "friendly" with each other, and he might expect similar "favours" from the Fellowship in exchange for the Ents' assistance in fighting Saruman, etc. Or am I reading too much into this strip? [[User:Beechmere|Beechmere]] ([[User talk:Beechmere|talk]]) 05:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Beechmere
:That last bit - yes, you are.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.203|172.69.79.203]] 08:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::Yes very far out there ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:Why would you assume that the way Ents engage in sexual relations was anything like that of humans, dwarves, elves or hobbits? [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 10:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Rivendell a "real place" in the Lord of the Rings or something that xkcd made up? What is it known for? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 05:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:Rivendell is the sanctuary of the Elves. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.203|172.69.79.203]] 08:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::Very important place in LoTR where Elrond lives. It is where the fellowship of the ring is born. So as real as Narnia... :-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:LOL! Yeah, a significant location, it's where the Fellowship rest up, IIRC they reunite with Gandalf there. They confer with elven elders there. In the movies the female elder was getting seduced by the ring and gets demonic before catching a hold of herself. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
::Nah, that was Lothlorien. Rivendell is where the Fellowship is formed. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.26|172.70.211.26]] 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ummmm, there's ANYBODY who finds it debatable if non-human females count toward the Bechdel test??? By that logic the only male in this comic is Aragorn! Come on! That's one thing that bugs me on this site, SO many explanations with overly cautious uncertainty where none belong. There is no question whatsoever if non-human-but-humanoid females count, I suspect the definition doesn't specify "human", after all. :) My vote is to adjust that part.

Also, I know this is true for The Hobbit, but I forget: Did the movie add females who weren't in the book? In order to address this issue? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
:No, the LotR movies were better about not inventing characters from whole cloth. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.26|172.70.211.26]] 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Why should any particular story have equal numbers of men and women? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 01:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2660: Gen Z

2025-04-27T00:43:34Z

Gatorized:

:Every generation's opinions about the new generation have been 100% correct, in every case, without exception.[[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 00:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense that Randall isn't calling out any particular fads, trends, tendencies, or commonalities in Gen Z to comment on, but some immediately came to my mind as I read the comic. Is it worth putting a list of possibilities in the explanation, or just one or two examples? That knowledge probably isn't going to contribute to the understanding of the joke, which is that for *every* generation there have been such observations and complaints from older folks. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 21:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
:I don't think there's a need for that, but someone should add a definition of Generation Z. The Wikipedia page that it links to should describe the notable features of that generation. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the title text in the New Zealand Mail, Issue 1729, 19 April 1905, Page 15 (https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZMAIL19050419.2.44).
:Not quite the same, though both articles were probably based on reading the same medical communication that one references. The Kansas one, however, appears to be the source of the quote in the comic. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]])

holy shit randall is based --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 01:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
:Based on what? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 03:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::Binary [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 14:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::Based is a term I have heard of, it means really like something but you say it in a jokey, possibly sarcastic way. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 06:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=based [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the five listeners represent the five generations between the {{w|Lost Generation}} (when {{w|Boater}} hats like the speaker is wearing were popular) and the Gen Z that he is talking about. The middle character with the flower in her hair is definitely a {{w|hippie}}, for the {{w|Baby boomers}}. I mentally associate the white {{w|Flat cap}} with post-WW2, which would be the {{w|Silent generation}}, although I'm not sure why I have that association. Extending this, the {{w|Millennial}} is the one saying "Gosh", the one in the black hat would be a {{w|Gen X|Gen Xer}} (no idea why), and the last one with the hairbun would be from the {{w|Greatest generation}}. I don't think I can describe those associations well enough to actually write it up, though. Does this view make sense to anyone else? -- [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 21:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

:I think that's an interesting interpretation, but I would invoke Occam's razor to suggest that the fashions depicted could all be from the early 1900s, and that the gathered crowd is composed of "small town salespeople in 1905" as the caption describes. I think if Randall wanted to make it clear they were from different generations, he would include more obvious cultural touchstones in their clothing or speech, and he wouldn't have them conversing with each other unless there were a reason to introduce time travel

I agree with the Elk Falls Journal correspondent. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone else unable to load the page for comic 1962 when logged in? I can load it when logged out, but when I'm logged in I get an error. I pasted the error message to [[Talk:1962: Generations]]. --[[User:Orion205|Orion205]] ([[User talk:Orion205|talk]]) 23:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think French ever wrote "yaghurt". But it writes "yaourt". --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.127|172.71.130.127]] 07:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The hats are: straw boater/skimmer, definitely of the 1905 period; perhaps homburg or fedora, mostly kind of the period; Greek fisherman’s cap, I say anachronistic. My impression is that such caps were popular in the 60s, 70s with men of the Greatest Generation. (Such as my father!) Randall has used that kind of hat to indicate elderly men in other comics, so maybe a joke? {{unsigned|BuckyE|15:35, 19 August 2022}}
: It's a cloth-type cap, but I think it far predates the '60s, etc. And while greek-sailors contemporary of '60s/'70s films do ring a bell, I had other classes and eras of person in mind.
: Anyway, if you look in [https://vintagedancer.com/1900s/1900s-mens-hat-styles-edwardian-era/ here in the Golf Caps section], and even a few of the images slightly above there, there seem to be styles which could have directly inspired what turned up to adorn the stick-figure heads in characature line-drawn form. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61|162.158.34.61]] 20:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think all the characters are 1905 versions of the stock-characters in xkcd, I'd say from left to right they are White Hat, Megan, Black Hat, Science Girl, Cueball, and one more that I cannot figure out.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.208|172.69.69.208]] 18:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: OH DUH, THE LAST ONE IS HAIRBUN [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.193|162.158.62.193]] 22:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

It is possible that the alt text is an actual quotation from a 1905 cookbook, based on a reference from a cooking blog [https://sharonkreider.com/2021/11/09/the-joy-of-cooking/], however, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine shows no record of this page from its 2021 archives, so it may be an elaborate retcon, including a dated comment from 2021. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.215|172.70.114.215]] 18:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Bill

Talk:2701: Change in Slope

2025-04-26T02:10:38Z

Gatorized:

I am an occasional data scientist, and I can confirm this is why we have monitor stands that tilt. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.50|172.71.94.50]] 16:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The right panel is not exaggerated. In the linked image, the now-tilted left panel is identical to the right panel in the original comic.

The third e in "neeed" in the title text seems to be a typo
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 16:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think Randall may have added it to represent that the speaker prolongs the "e" sound for emphasis, although that's usually done with 4-5 e's. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::I had to double-check this, myself (presumed the 'Bot created the lage faithfully, but went straight to source to see if I needed to find a vandalism post to revert). May need a comment (to prevent hypercorrection, if not to note the implied emphisis) and certainly will if it turns out to be a typo and gets corrected (for which I'm sure a future checker will discover Randall's revisiting, but then worth a note to that effect). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I guess Randall fixed it, because I'm only seeing 2 'e's in the title text. Just updated it on the wiki. [[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Bender Bot was one of the main characters in Futurama. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Just donning my unnecessary pedantry hat for a moment: his name is Bender Bending Rodriguez --[[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple(?) of authors used the word(s) "(point of) inflection", which is {{w|Inflection point|not really suitable}} for a join between two straight segments. Was tempted to talk about "discontinuity", but that really only applies to the meta-slope (derivatives, to one degree or other) where it suddenly jumps (at a point), or the derivative's derivative has jumps (as it enters and leaves the smoothly linking curve). Hope it works well enough how I left it, though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.176|162.158.142.176]] 21:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For anyone curious, I used an image editor to turn the entire comic sideways and [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/525939879805190154/1044395695525875712/xkcd_sideways.png it actually does seem to work,] to some degree anyway. [[User:SuperSupermario24|SSM24]] 23:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.230|172.71.158.230]] 00:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

: If you don't mind sharing: which program did you use? Did you tweak things like relative distance / camera FOV, to effectively select a specific point in the continuum that makes up the {{w|Dolly Zoom}} effect, and at the limit on one end results in {{w|orthographic projection}}? (Edit 10 minutes later: a better article to look at is {{w|Perspective distortion (photography)}}) Or did you just leave it at whatever the default is? Can you recreate the image with the two extremes, and share them? And lastly - can you upload the image (and potentially the new images) to the wiki directly, so they can be embedded in the page? Thanks! --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This one shows the beauty of Explainxkcd: people reading the explanation are likely to learn accessible methods of substantial practical utility. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if it works for picking out lumber at Lowe’s, why not for graphs, too? - MadMarie
:There was an old bit of explanation that related it to examining physical objects (for dent/bend-removal in metalwork, I think it was) that got wiped out by a later edit. Though I'm considering my own version, now generalised to cover your experience, as it seems quite relevant/analogous to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the 1st explanation needs to go touch grass and learn how real people talk, pissed me off so much I just effectively rewrote the whole thing from scratch [[Special:Contributions/172.71.202.46|172.71.202.46]] 06:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Intrigued, looking at the first explanation (give or take that person's initial small errors/omissions) I personally find it more to the point than what it has become. Not to say the complete rewrite was wrong, but it got it not that much closer to the mythical perfection. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.169|141.101.76.169]] 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Going in a different direction than "this is silly" - if we ignore the "viewing point/parallax" issue, doing a change of basis like this is similar to linear methods like [SVD https://hadrienj.github.io/assets/images/ch12_svd/ch11_SVD_geometry.png] & [https://jakevdp.github.io/PythonDataScienceHandbook/figures/05.09-PCA-rotation.png PCA], and considering the graph as a mappingg in a "higher dimension" is similar to the "kernel trick" popularized by [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wqSTBCguVyU/maxresdefault.jpg Support] [https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*gtF6KeL7b9zNHd7pXtC1Nw.png Vector] [https://dinhanhthi.com/img/post/ML/support-vector-machine/svm-3.jpg Machines] 11:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

== Raw Data ==

I love this cartoon. This is definitely something that was relevant in my work!

At my old job I had some commercial or public-domain software for extracting the raw data behind a scatter plot. If anyone has something like that handy, I would love to see someone extract the data behind the graph on the left, so that we can:
1. Apply the affine transformation which generates the image on the right with the tilted paper.
2. Apply the statistical tests which Randall Munroe is alluding to.

:Knock yourself out:
{{cot|Digitized data courtesy https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/}}
<pre>
0.000000, 0.015366
0.001887, 0.000000
0.002830, 0.041488
0.024528, 0.060695
0.033019, 0.014597
0.038679, 0.009988
0.044340, 0.072220
0.047170, 0.055317
0.050000, 0.072220
0.064858, 0.092964
0.070215, 0.117001
0.088207, 0.088354
0.091037, 0.122928
0.091037, 0.109099
0.100943, 0.140215
0.103773, 0.165338
0.106603, 0.178246
0.128891, 0.171331
0.147641, 0.196685
0.146226, 0.187465
0.162264, 0.215124
0.180188, 0.264910
0.182452, 0.218812
0.202830, 0.275052
0.204245, 0.261222
0.208490, 0.272747
0.217923, 0.293491
0.227358, 0.267369
0.230322, 0.234880
0.241744, 0.311930
0.256603, 0.344199
0.262263, 0.338930
0.299056, 0.376467
0.308254, 0.420261
0.313206, 0.417956
0.336791, 0.456371
0.344338, 0.433322
0.355659, 0.456371
0.367923, 0.496323
0.374055, 0.503237
0.388206, 0.503237
0.389621, 0.514762
0.409433, 0.533201
0.412263, 0.525518
0.415093, 0.540884
0.432074, 0.555328
0.446225, 0.599275
0.443395, 0.588519
0.449526, 0.537811
0.449055, 0.588519
0.468866, 0.609263
0.487263, 0.627702
0.490093, 0.636922
0.516979, 0.670727
0.523448, 0.697179
0.519809, 0.662276
0.548111, 0.697618
0.551413, 0.740642
0.550941, 0.689935
0.565092, 0.726813
0.572168, 0.724508
0.576413, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.763691
0.601177, 0.785588
0.604714, 0.791350
0.625335, 0.775545
0.643394, 0.817473
0.664620, 0.855119
0.688812, 0.871693
0.688003, 0.821643
0.710374, 0.925035
0.707544, 0.806716
0.715091, 0.888156
0.717921, 0.880473
0.724148, 0.976665
0.749054, 0.927010
0.757544, 0.961913
0.763204, 0.959608
0.783016, 0.983426
0.781601, 0.971133
0.797166, 1.028756
0.802827, 1.031060
0.805657, 0.999560
0.821223, 0.966523
0.822638, 0.957304
0.842449, 1.038744
0.843864, 1.028756
0.859431, 1.049500
0.865091, 1.058719
0.876411, 1.077159
0.882072, 1.086378
0.889147, 1.077159
0.901883, 1.024914
0.904714, 1.017231
0.908605, 1.100208
0.913204, 1.107122
0.936553, 1.130171
0.937261, 1.116342
0.967447, 1.159370
0.969806, 1.205310
0.978301, 1.104817
0.983956, 1.101525
1.000000, 1.167820
</pre>
{{cob}}
:104 points. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::: I only count 69 distinct dots, although a handful look like they might be merged pairs. What's up with that? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.48|172.70.210.48]] 04:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Can someone please check my work https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1c_7Qj3S1VXtL-AckfSfHCd4ofGYYDYH5 and tell me if I'm doing it right? I'm pretty sure I don't really know what I'm doing. I kind of cargo cult-coded the Savitzky-Golay filter stuff linked from the explanation and have zero understanding of what's actually going on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 21:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Here's how Randall seems to be suggesting to do it, based on the light gray figures: [superceded] -- Can someone please help fix the residuals on the second plot? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::: I fixed the residuals and added an inset confidence interval comparisons for the two slopes, split by both their maximum difference and by the maximum sum of the r2 values: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1apKDIN5FE32mtGiQew5cE6wK6m6eM_Fr It's not clear from the gray text which method Randall is suggesting. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: I added this to the end of the Colab notebook:

# Later in the Explainxkcd explanation, a "Significance of the Difference between Two Slopes Calculator"
# at https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=103 is recommended, so ... we get:

# split by maximum slope difference: (as shown in green and red)
# t-Value: 5.52246856
# Degrees of freedom: 100
# Probability: 0.00000027 (significant as < 0.05)

# split by maximum sum of r²s:
# t-Value: 6.25478825
# Degrees of freedom: 100
# Probability: 0.00000001 (also very significant)

# So, while the latter might technically be about 27 times more likely, both represent undoutably
# different linear fits. Perhaps someone can ask Randall which he was suggesting, if indeed either?

:::: What's the most reliable way to ask Randall this? Twitter? Email? Google Chat? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.91|172.71.158.91]] 23:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::: Why don't you generate a series of mildly noisy datasets of two slightly different but random lines each and see which method gets closest to the generating parameters? Also, please put more blank lines in your code, and consider right-aligning the comments. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.146|172.70.211.146]] 01:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What's funny is people are doing a lot of statistics and computer magic when you can just tilt your screen like the comic says and get the same effect :P {{unsigned ip|172.70.54.52|16:14, 25 November 2022}}
:(Ɔ┴∩) ᄅᄅ0ᄅ ɹǝqɯǝʌoN ϛᄅ 'ㄣϛ:ㄥƖ ᄅᄅᄅ˙ᄅ9Ɩ˙0ㄥ˙ᄅㄥƖ ¡ƃuoɹʍ ʇᴉq ɐ ʇuǝʍ ƃuᴉɥʇǝɯos ʇnq 'ʇɐɥʇ pǝᴉɹʇ I

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:33:07Z

Gatorized:

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Cities are for people. All cities. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Why doesn't black flight happen? Don't black people want to get away from all those evil racists? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.
: What are you talking about? You don't bike to work, you bike five minutes to the train / bus and take that to work. No one has ever claimed that you should only ever use bikes and nothing else, unless of course you actually live in a city that was designed for humans, in which case you could just as easily walk everywhere.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:Riding your bike in the street is no different than suicide. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:Nope. A combination of the listed transit options without automobiles covers every case. Cars aren't required for any reason, ever.
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:31:45Z

Gatorized:

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Cities are for people. All cities. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.
: What are you talking about? You don't bike to work, you bike five minutes to the train / bus and take that to work. No one has ever claimed that you should only ever use bikes and nothing else, unless of course you actually live in a city that was designed for humans, in which case you could just as easily walk everywhere.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:Riding your bike in the street is no different than suicide. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:Nope. A combination of the listed transit options without automobiles covers every case. Cars aren't required for any reason, ever.
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:31:31Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Cities are for people. All cities. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.
: What are you talking about? You don't bike to work, you bike five minutes to the train / bus and take that to work. No one has ever claimed that you should only ever use bikes and nothing else, unless of course you actually live in a city that was designed for humans, in which case you could just as easily walk everywhere.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:Riding your bike in the street is no different than suicide. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:Nope. A combination of the listed transit options without automobiles covers every case. Cars aren't required for any reason, ever.
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:31:22Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Cities are for people. All cities.
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.
: What are you talking about? You don't bike to work, you bike five minutes to the train / bus and take that to work. No one has ever claimed that you should only ever use bikes and nothing else, unless of course you actually live in a city that was designed for humans, in which case you could just as easily walk everywhere.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:Riding your bike in the street is no different than suicide. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:Nope. A combination of the listed transit options without automobiles covers every case. Cars aren't required for any reason, ever.
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:29:51Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.
: What are you talking about? You don't bike to work, you bike five minutes to the train / bus and take that to work. No one has ever claimed that you should only ever use bikes and nothing else, unless of course you actually live in a city that was designed for humans, in which case you could just as easily walk everywhere.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:Riding your bike in the street is no different than suicide. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:Nope. A combination of the listed transit options without automobiles covers every case. Cars aren't required for any reason, ever.
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:26:11Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.
: What are you talking about? You don't bike to work, you bike five minutes to the train / bus and take that to work. No one has ever claimed that you should only ever use bikes and nothing else, unless of course you actually live in a city that was designed for humans, in which case you could just as easily walk everywhere.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:24:30Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:24:17Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: No one is comparing the entire nation of the US to the entire nation of the Netherlands.
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:23:13Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 22:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2025-04-24T22:22:39Z

Gatorized:

Get a car loser :)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube... {{unsigned ip|172.71.94.141|06:47, 23 September 2023}}
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.109|11:52, 23 September 2023}}
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.24|15:32, 23 September 2023}}
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we're talking about cities, since that's where transit is a major concern. Obviously. Why would you think otherwise?
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

: Your argument doesn't seem to be "turning all cities into Amsterdam" is not feasible, but that Dutch-style cities are simply not possible. I wonder what properties you ascribe to them that made it possible to turn away from car domination in the 1970s and become the chant-worthy places they are today, then? (I lived in US cities for my first 3 decades and have spent my 4th in Amsterdam, and don't think "Amsterdam was special" holds much water, especially now that e-bikes are commonplace.) [[User:Gerwitz|Gerwitz]] ([[User talk:Gerwitz|talk]]) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:The insistent distinction between "people on bikes" and "cyclists" reminds me of [https://satwcomic.com/how-to-use-a-bike this Scandinavia and the World comic] pointing out just what a bizarre attitude that is in an environment that *actually* caters to cyclists rather than saying "well you're a road vehicle the same as cars so what's the problem" and ignoring the rather drastic difference in lethality between the two and hateful attitudes expressed by motorists towards the bicycles they're obliged to share the road with. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.75|172.71.98.75]] 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::The latest Highway Code (in Britain) has been rephrased to more explicitly make all road(/etc) users aware that they are responsible for not causing problems for those more vulnerable than themselves. Cyclists can cause pedestrians serious problems, as well as being caused problems by cars(/buses/lorries/etc).
::Though familiarity with (and willingness to follow) the Highway Code is where I'd separate a "person on a bike" (oblivious to all rights and responsibilities, just treat it like a two-wheeled 'parkour-device') and "cyclist" (someone who actually acts responsibly). Obviously, there's shades between. And most people don't have the history of having learnt their (cycle-)roadsmarts from an early age, even before they became drivers (if they ever did); too many people may take up the sport/leisure/commute/whatever activities of the bike in much later life (well after "messing about on a bike" phase as a kid) and learn/adopt a lot of wrong/troublesome ways to do things. Either too cautious and timid (on the road, at least) as a result of their own expectations from the perspective of the car-seat, or else too "born again cyclist"/activistic in an anti-motorist 'reclaim the streets' manner. And neither type really help to create a smooth experience for everyone else on the road. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::: We *have* shopping areas in the US where you can just walk from one store to another. They're called "malls". Just move them outside and replace the surrounding giant parking lot with housing. There, you've reinvented the European city center! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.124|172.71.167.124]] 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions. {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.15|08:07, 25 September 2023}}

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!! {{unsigned ip|172.70.46.171|08:16, 25 September 2023}}

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) {{unsigned|Kleptog|09:41, 25 September 2023}}

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]] 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How could we convince Randall to do a what-if on the feasibility of the Snow Crash carpoon? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.161|162.158.158.161]] 05:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "strawman" means. It means to falsely interpret another person's claims. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.55|162.158.158.55]] 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Bort

=Use of the unsigned templates=

(Just a meta-note, to a recent editor of this page, that using the established {{template|unsigned ip}} and {{template|unsigned}} templates (ideally with the two parameters of appropriate username/ip and then the timestamp, which you clearly identified and used) makes for a much more readable, consistent and brief markup. Like you'd not normally want to mess with the formatting personally to 'emulate' the {{template|Citation needed}} tag. And if you're trying to do something different from established measures, then I really couldn't see it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] 16:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:Dear [[User:141.101.69.53]] and/or [[User:172.70.85.58]], the standard for MediaWiki is to ''subst:'' these templates. See {{w|Template:Unsigned_IP}} and {{w|Template:Unsigned}}. You don't have to do so, but unless you have a strong principled compelling and convincing reason, it is inappropriate to revert and change other editors' choices. Your desire for a "readable, consistent[,] and brief markup" is the exact opposite of the design intention. Once this is entered, it is not to be edited, changed, or fiddled with, and leaving it as a template encourages that kind of fiddling, which is inappropriate. It's supposed to be a record of who entered what when, and that's not something that is ever supposed to change, nor should it need to change. So leave it alone! What is your basis for claiming "established measures"? It can't be either this wiki nor the English Wikipedia nor Mediawiki in general, since none of those things support you. I put this into a topic so it's less distracting to others, hopefully. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::Dear JohnHawkinson, you'll note that the ''overwhelming usage'' on explainxkcd is to use (and leave) the explicitly templated form. Whether or not it is otherwise on (say) Wikipedia, and for whatever reasons (I can, indeed, think of some reasons for that preference) it has become accepted practice here (or, if you insist, ''mal''practice) for... at least a decade? A quick dabble in well-established Talk pages with sufficiently old interventions of this kind demonstrate this. Fiddling can, of course, ''always'' be done (even when Substed), but just as easily detected and reverted. Personally, I value the handy abbreviated (but fully informed) form. (You can't 'accidentally' hide a dubious connection, like a <User:this> actually linking to a <User:that>, etc, which the expanded form can be made to do.)
::If there's anything I feel rather guilty about, it's hardly ever making it say "UTC" (because when I copypasta the details, from the Diffs page top/whatever, ''that'' never explicitly says it is UTC, and it's easy enough to forget or not care about adding it to the relevent Param string). I don't know about anyone else's preferences, here, but it looks like there's either a lot more efficiency or a lot more backsliding/apathy, depending upon what perspective takes on this issue. I can't remember the last time I saw someone expand it out to the literal format like this, but of course I may only see it after editing/re-editing and have missed a tussle between the two paradigms like some of the other (named or IP) users have done above.
::No, it's not a good idea to edit-war about this, so I'm just poking my nose in to point out my observations. I'm sure it'll be easy to ignore me (an anon-IP), even if I know that I've been around for a ''long'' time in this form and think I know the established culture here (and have learnt to blend in with it). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]] 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.213|172.71.98.213]], are you the same as [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.53|141.101.69.53]] or [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.58|172.70.85.58]]? I don't note the "''overwhelming usage''" on this wiki, no. I'm not quite sure how I would, since of course you can't count the references to ''subst:''ed templates. I think it's pretty rare anyone would talk about it, you just go with whatever the first person did, and honestly it seems pretty rare that anybody bothers to use these templates at all. My gripe is that I made a choice and it shouldn't be reverted without a good reason, and I haven't heard one. This is different from saying everyone should always do it "my way." [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Practical check:
::::#Use the Random Page link to go to an article (repeat from this point as many times as you think you need to). ''In creating this example, I landed on [[1163:_Debugger]]''
::::#Search page for the "please sign" text. ''There's two here (both in the Discussion transcluded section of the Talk: page, obviously).''
::::#Note the timestamps. ''Rather naughtily, only the IP is provided, but once you actually go looking at the History/Diffs, step-by-step, you'll note that these two were done in 2013 and 2016!!''
::::#Go and look at the actual markup made by the editors who added them. ''In this example, it's actually a major Admin (still occasionally active) and another Admin/'Crat (not as active... intervened a couple of times in 2021, but otherwise stopped doing anything by 2015), who are a surprisingly good 'vintage' of editors. And it looks like they're definitely adherents to the non-subst (as well as non-timestamp) cause.''
::::#Maybe you want to correct things while you're there..? As long as you're prepared to correct a ''lot'' more things. ''I'd be tempted to insert the datetime parameter in this instance, perhaps, if I also found some other legitimate reason to go in there. I'd not subst: it nor go in there '''just''' to do this, but YMMV.''
::::...I kept on Random Paging a few more times, aiming to land on a comic that was pre-1000 (yes, I could actually ''choose'' such a number, but where's the fun in that?), but the first reasonably unrecent page that had actual vintage unsigned elements to investigate was slightly later, but again featured Davidy22 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1271:_Highlighting&diff=prev&oldid=122049 shuffling and adding a (timestampless) raw-template version] in the name of correcting the error of top-posting siglessly.
::::Went on a bit more. Whether or not the God Of Random Numbers might be trying to fool me, however, it seems to continue in the same vein.
::::You are a fairly established username (a good few months of valuable edits, it looks like, and useful for it), with who knows how much actual prior experience under any other username (or none). But I know what I've seen over the last decade or so, and it's clearly not reflecting the MediaWiki standard. Perhaps this is a discussion to be had more in one or other of the Community Gateway pages, however?
::::I'm ambivalent about the cosmetic edits (not reverts, but modifications as much as your original modifications to ''add'' the info) that were made on your kind contributions to removing actual not-signed-at-all-edness. Seems like a lot more effort than necessary, but perhaps if someone is passing by and feels they can optimise things more in line with site convention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]] 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.150|172.70.86.150]], I can't tell if you're the same as the other IP editors or not. This makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. Please explain if you're the same person, or better yet, create an account. I've restored the section/topic markers, because, again, they were a choice made and that choice should be respected absent some reason given (do you see a theme here?). Gosh, I only get credit for "a few months"? Wow, that seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I'll hold off on my reply as to the substance until I understand whether I am talking to the same person or different people. Also, I am annoyed, which does not counsel replying at this time. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!       I understood [[Special:Contributions/141.101.100.194|141.101.100.194]]'s [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2832:_Urban_Planning_Opinion_Progression&diff=324365&oldid=324364 edit] to properly belong in this section, as if to say, "Quit it, you idiots." So I do not think it should have been moved. But just to echo that sentiment, I will repeat it here on my own, so there is no doubt. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Netherlands (or, as should be correctly identified, Amsterdam & other urban areas; the Dutch countryside necessarily has issues with accessibility to services & public transport for the reasons I'm discussing) is such a highly-walkable place because of high population density; the vast majority of two-bedroom apartments are often less than 30 square feet in area. This is a consequence of being such a small country, which is a mindset that multi-generational upper- and middle-class Americans cannot fully comprehend; to them, there's always been more room to spread out. Only New Yorkers can have an idea of what that level of density is like. As well, car storage has been hampered by the low-lying land & high water table precluding basement garages, forcing cars to remain outside. Add in the prohibitive costs of running cars in Europe (gas costs at least €6,50 (6,99$US) per gallon, plus road taxes & Low-Emissions Zone charges in major cities (let's see somebody try to implement ''that'' idea in the USA!)), that means that city-dwellers see cars as luxuries, not essential to daily life and used only for visiting rural areas & transporting large items (most Europeans will shop for groceries only every few days, so they usually only buy enough to fill one or two shopping bags which can be carried. No-one buys a week or fortnight's worth of food at once because a) that's expensive and b) the majority of the food we buy is fresh & spoils soon after purchase.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.41|172.71.214.41]] 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:I assume you mean 30 m^2 and not 30 ft^2? Thirty square feet equals only three square meters, which is smaller than a King-size mattress. Thirty square meters, on the other hand, is believable for “two small bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bath”.--[[User:Ijuinkun|Ijuinkun]] ([[User talk:Ijuinkun|talk]]) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::Can't speak for the IP that said that (and their use of ampersands triggers me a little!), but some ''really'' cramped apartments might well be sub 30 ft² (ultra-high-density locations). Or maybe they meant (30 ft)²; but ~100 m² is actually quite large (more internal floor area than my own two-storey 3(/2.5)-bedroom house), so probably not that. Otherwise, given [https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/media/9-of-the-tiniest-apartments-in-the-u-s/ articles like this], 300 ft² might have been intended (I don't think any of those are 2-bedroom, but perhaps have (pull-out) bed for two people!)... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.18|141.101.98.18]] 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Given that it purports to allege '''the vast majority''' of 2-bedroom apartments are '''often''' less than 30 square feet, I don't think we should be concerned about "really cramped apartments." Thirty square meters is 323 square feet, which is not plausible for a two-bedroom apartment. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)