For the transcript, I’m thinking of saying that “there are alternating white and grey squares, with smaller black squares imposed on them. The pattern of squares goes ''[something like GWBWGWBWGBW]''“. Would that work? Or is it too confusing? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Re: "GWBWGWBWGBW", knowing who we are here, I presume people might want to distinguish black-on-white from black-on-gray. We'd probably have to have a full markup system for background (gray/white) and foreground (empty, human, barrier, white pawn, gray pawn...). Maybe something like {[gE][wE][gB][wQg]}... Hrm... Because, of course, it has to be as complicated and precise as possible. :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.135|172.70.46.135]] 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t really like the current transcript because I believe that it’s more confusing to read than my version. Anyone have thoughts? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Although I do have a suggestion for the transcript: instead of having “H” as a representation of a human, we can have C for [[Cueball]], H for [[Hairy]], P for [[Ponytail]], W for [[White Hat]], D for [[Danish]], M for [[Megan]], and K for [[Knit Cap]]. We could also have Unicode black squares instead of the “#” and color the pieces with span. Thoughts? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's safe to allow people to go into the bishop enclosure, especially with high aggression in that area since both colors are able to look at each other there but not capture. One of those bishops is eventually going to take it out on someone. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know how dangerous they are to visitors in general, but I wouldn't leave children with them unattended. Maybe the enclosures with the knights would be good petting zoos. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for reporting the bishop feeding gate being open, as this was the fifteenth time the one responsible failed to close it after feeding, he has been summarily fired.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.106|172.70.47.106]] 20:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Depends - they're only dangerous in the proselytising season.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.43|172.68.186.43]] 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The zoo seems to be missing an area for knights and bishops to interact. (It has a knight/queen area, a knight/rook area, and a rook/bishop area. It can't have queen/rook or queen/bishop areas if it wants to have areas for rooks or bishops that exclude queens, because nothing blocks queens without blocking rooks and bishops. But it could have a knight/bishop mingling area, accessible to knights via wall-jump and to bishops via a diagonal corridor, and it doesn't.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.84|162.158.187.84]] 20:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Similarly, couldn't the pawn promoting zones be more centrally located each side, and have passages respectively for queens/rooks and for knights? Of course then those could enter and interact with promoting pawns, but why would that be deemed a problem? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 20:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::No because it a promoted queen can come into a zone with rooks then it can also get into the bishops room and then enter the opposing bishops room and take them and then get to take opposing rooks and knights as well. It would also be hard to keep knight's out of the opposing side if they get into the bishops area, it would take a lot of wall space. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I believe a knight-knight interaction zone of opposing colors is also possible if correctly designed (such as a 2xn corridor with a particular entrance [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.52|162.158.154.52]] 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::It would have to be a very restrictive zone. In the case of the 3x3 of [[839: Explorers]], any knight not on the centre-tile could technically take (or be taken by) any other such knight of that was also there (and not on the centre-tile). Though any knight in imminent danger could of course move to not be (the knight that posed the danger could then move to repose that danger, and they dance around the board in {{w|octagram}}ish 'circuits'.
::I would propose, though, that a limited-jump entry from two adjoining enclosures to land knights onto a 2x3 'shared enclosure' could work, such that they can't jump to any more thn their two opposite corners (thus also never jump out of it into the other's 'normal' enclosure). And, in my head, I'm imagning a form of zig-zagging diagonal that might extend the area without overlapping the (though intermingling, as with bishops) the viable landing zones. The following is a quick (and probably incorrect, if you spot the probable errors I've not handled correctly) method of mingling two sets of knights (1 & 2, mostly given free reign to top left and bottom right) between walls (#) and various other 'open' squares (.) that could be something else.
2222###........
2222#######....
#2###21#####...
#####122#1##..#
#.####212######
....###221###1#
.....###122#111
......###21##11
.......#####111
........#.#1111
.........###111
::In fact, with a narrower corridor, I believe I could constrain two sets of knights to travelling mutually non-antagonistically across a nominally intermingled diagonalised 'neutral-zone', ''plus'' send a viable 'bishop corridor' (in fact multiple bishop-corridors!) across in the other diagonal, but then it'd have to be a far less generous pseudo-shared area for the knights, and wouldn't look even as good as the above. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.123|172.68.205.123]] 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: You can have some interesting shaped-areas for knights too, not just corridors; you can trivially put two knights together by blocking one of them from moving at all, the interesting question is how to give them both the most freedom of movement, safely, and/or the minimum number of 'blocks' for a given area. e.g. [https://output.jsbin.com/wegelanuci] [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 11:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:You can't have same-coloured knights also enter into an opposites-of-bishop shared space, because for all the wish to have shared (overlapping but not congruent) spaces for pieces of the same colour but different limitations, the presence of the anti-bishops would mean contention with the pro-knights.
:The fact tht the pawn-enclosures are totally without any same-set pieces (well, apart from the knight, but that was from a promotion) ''does'' seem to suggest there's a lack of possible mixing going on, I know. But, the way I read it, if heterochromic pieces can be 'mixed', then they can (which effectively is just the two different ecclesiastical compliments), with homochomic ones then also being allowed to mix if they can do so in a way such that they have ''all'' of an "A and B" area, an "A-only" area and a "B-only" area (it's a bit more complicated than that with the kings and queens, as they can traverse all of the same areas as each other, plus the lobe of knight-area which overlaps, but you have "knight+royal", "royal-only" and "knight-only").
:Though I ''can'' think of one such sharing-situation I would mark down as missed: i.e. a pawn sharing a space with bishops and/or knights with a bishop-/knight-proof corridor 'directly forward' (and, of course, no sideways movement allowed by the pawn), giving the pawn both its unique space and shared space and only-the-other-piece spaces off to the sides. Though, the whole promotion prospects means that just about anything could 'suddenly' be in the pawn-only space, thus sending potential knights/bishops into that 'by proxy'.
:...or maybe I've not extrapolated Randall's precise methodology here, but I believe I've accounted the general limitations he seems to have worked to. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.215|162.158.33.215]] 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have permissions to upload an image to this wiki, but if anyone who does would like to copy it over, I illustrated each piece's range of movement here[https://pasteboard.co/64VsBMA5af8l.png]. [[User:D5xtgr|D5xtgr]] ([[User talk:D5xtgr|talk]]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have put the picture in a [[3036:_Chess_Zoo#Trivia|trivia]] section --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The plan of the zoo looks like opposing Lewis Chess Men! [[User:Nicholasbailey87|Nicholasbailey87]] ([[User talk:Nicholasbailey87|talk]]) 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

the transcript needs to be descriptive rather than a text-based diagram so it's screenreader accessible. if someone thinks it's necessary they can move the ascii art to the description. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.101|172.68.71.101]] 23:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A knight recently escaped. When asked for comment, the director of the zoo said "!?" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.134|172.68.70.134]] 01:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This is actually a sokoban chess puzzle, where the pieces can push the blocks. White to move and mate in 47.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.205|172.70.214.205]] 02:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)NickM

In the UK there is a famous zoo called "Chester Zoo", comic readers from the UK will think there is a pun.--[[User:Doctormo|Doctormo]] ([[User talk:Doctormo|talk]]) 03:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

In Russian, chess knights and bishops are literally called horses and elephants. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.59|172.71.148.59]] 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the 'same portals that block bishops' can block knights, not without being longer. A knight could get through the 'petting zoo' portal to the bishop paddock. But there's another example below and to the left of a similar portal but much longer that DOES prevent the knights from passing. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.194.90|172.71.194.90]] 14:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Do I need new glasses or did the black king escape? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.97|162.158.95.97]] 17:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Look at the third visitor along at the 'top', then go straight down. Maybe less obvious as the dark pieces hide their internal details more, leaving just their fuzzy (depending on zoom level) outlines. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 21:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the transcript has switched the K's and Q's. The king is the piece with the cross on his crown. See {{w|Staunton chess set}}. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.157|172.68.54.157]] 22:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s too bad it couldn’t have somehow allowed castling, or maybe it could’ve just pretended it did. I would’ve appreciated title text that mentioned an incident involving a king escaping its enclosure despite their best efforts due to emergent behavior from unanticipated interaction between differing pieces and Jeff Goldblum saying that nature will find a way. {{unsigned|SammyChips}} SammyChips 18:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:If castling is only blocked by pieces and not walls, Black could still do it if neither the king not bishop to the right of it had moved previously [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.72|162.158.41.72]] 18:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I believe the problem would be with the rook, which would need to occupy the wall space that the king skipped over, unless the process of castling was generalized some to allow different magnitudes of jumps, even if the requirement for lack of movement was ignored. {{unsigned|SammyChips}} SammyChips 18:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There has been some contention about the sentence in the pawn promotion paragraph: "Alternatively, perhaps the pawn promotion process produces some sort of cute noise, and if visitors are quiet they are more likely to hear it."
This edit has been added and reverted [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3036%3A_Chess_Zoo&type=revision&diff=363085&oldid=363001 multiple times].
What is the reasoning for wanting it added vs removed? I would like to hear some comments about it. {{unsigned ip|172.68.23.217|01:25, 22 January 2025}}
:My comments: Fairly obviously, it is probable that "promoting pawns", like animals encouraged to act naturally like in the wild, should not be subject to too much anthropogenic noises (which doesn't stop one kid shouting about bishops, in earshot, if not within (bishop-)reach). ((Note that the "promotion rank" is the limit of the enclosure ''opposite'' the apparent observation point, it could even be intended not to irrevocably startle all the pawns into charging that way and suddenly there's only a mixed bag of non-pawns in the supposed pawn-enclosure... But nobody ever suggested ''that'', for some reason.))
:I can also see the possibility that there's something of an effect that happens whenever the nymph-form transforms into the imago-form, that is best appeciated in considered silence (either for a sound-effect being expected, or just from a reverence/care-to-other-patrons such as in a place of contemation or library).
:Hard to tell what was in Randall's mind, on the basis of so few clues. My policy (not always the policy of other editors!) is to not leave such obvious stones unturned and posit all reasonably possible interpretations ("reasonably possible" is a bit subjective, though, for people who are wedded to "'''the''' answer"). More explanation is always better than lacking something that satisfies a future reader. Worst case scenario of being reductionist is that someone new comes along later, they think ''they've'' uncovered what hasn't been uncovered before, adds (back) in what had been previously excised (without being honed by multiple sympathetic editors), perhaps even ''overwriting'' the other acceptable scenario, and then leaves it open to a revert/rewrite by those who already felt strongly the other way.
:Being inclusive of all options (to a point...) at least shows what has been reasonably considered. It forestalls grand edit-wars (perhaps someone might, by the same spirit but the opposite conviction, swap the associations of "probably this, but possibly that"-type statements. As long as it isn't ''totally'' off-kilter (ok, I know that can be subjective!), I see no harm in covering all the bases, leaving it open to minor tweaks rather than full on [[386: Duty Calls|personal absolutism]].
:In this example (not having seen the most recent state of play of the article), I saw the remove, the revert, the revert of the revert... That's already wrong. A revert should not be counter-reverted (let alone that counter-counter-reverted) without attempting to address the point. Better (if replacing a now twice-removed statement) to try to say it in other words, couch it as a more "some may also think"-equivalent than before. If you're removing a now twice-reverted statement (if not the first reversion, the second time it appeared!) consider whether ''you'' should instead give it an "it's unlikely, but"-qualification to reflect your own doubts.
:Creating a rally of edit-ping-pong with nothing but (for those who read them...) edit summary 'justifications' is not useful. I can't say I've never been part of that kind of process, but I certainly try not to. In this case, I was a bit troubled about the removed secondary interpretation, but would always have prefered that it be recomposed, to hedge the bets better, rather than directly restored. Never mind that it promptly got revanished, etc.
:More directly, yes, there's merit in the contentious text. And I do err towards inclusion (as long as it's not too long and unweildy, unlike ''this'' entire contribution), and am also not exactly a writer with a "{{wiktionary|kill one's darlings}}" discipline myself, but not so much that I felt that it was up to ''me'' to stabilise the situation with my own version. So... I say it should be raised, but probably could be said better. While those who snap-edit it out of existence could also consider their position(s).
:...and, if it somehow resolves itself, maybe let that be a general lesson to ''all'' cooperative editing done here? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

== Based on 1980s program? ==

There was a computer program, late '80s, maybe early '90s, that had this same premise.

You had different "aliens" or animals, and had to figure out their movement preferences, and create enclosures that would keep them happy.

On screen, with multiple entities, it looked exactly like this Chess Zoo.

If I missed it, I apologize, but did anyone provide the name of this program as a reference? {{unsigned ip|162.158.10.243|13:47, 19 February 2025‎}}

How did i miss this comic? This is fantastic! [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 02:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

RG: i stole this from BunsenH

User talk:RG

2026-05-14T06:33:17Z

RG: Created page with "blah blah blah more web pages to keep track of ~~~~"

blah blah blah more web pages to keep track of [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 06:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:2978: Stranded

2026-05-14T06:32:43Z

RG:

This reminds me of the apocryphal UK newspaper headline (sometimes claimed to be The Times in 1957): "Fog in (the English) Channel - Continent Cut Off"
See e.g. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-famous-headline-Fog-in-Channel-Continent-Cut-Off-an-urban-myth

It gets worse, SpaceX's Falcon 9 is grounded too: [https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-grounded-after-failing-landing-attempt-2024-08-28/ SpaceX's Falcon 9 grounded after failing landing attempt]:
:{{quote|Falcon 9 is also due to launch two NASA astronauts in late September on a Crew Dragon spacecraft that will bring home next year the two astronauts who have been stuck on the International Space Station after riding Boeing's troubled Starliner spacecraft. NASA regulates Falcon 9 for its own missions. It was not immediately clear how the rocket's latest grounding will affect that NASA mission. The U.S. space agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.}}
Here's hoping those guys like the view. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.165|172.71.166.165]] 20:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to add something about how the people on Earth not being alone may not be a benefit, considering all the political division and wars going on down here. But I think that's too much editorializing for an explanation. But we can say what we like in the comments. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com doesn't list Wilmore and Williams. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 22:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
:But it lists people who got back in July 2022, so I'd say it's not kept up to date....
:--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.116|188.114.102.116]] 22:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

wow this is JUST like the jevil  [[Special:Contributions/172.69.64.184|172.69.64.184]] 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

The transcript currently includes the statement “There's an elliptical window through which they can see the planet below”. Analysing the image carefully, that’s clearly correct - but at first, second and third glance I can’t help but see it as a circular porthole on an isometric view of a non-existent bulkhead on the left… I guess I’m just conditioned to expect things at ~30 degree angles to be isometric, rather than “floating in space”… [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.83|172.69.194.83]] 07:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:In a few moments, I'm going to change it to "large round". Roundedness does not admit to (nor deny) circularity, so covers any orientation of the bulkhead (also not sure what you mean by "non-existent", as the whole greebled wall you see is the probably-at-an-angle outer bulkhead).
:It is also ''very'' large, in keeping with xkcd's illustrative fiction (bigger, but more believably non-cornered than [[2906: Earth]], if that's supposed to be a window/porthole; a variety seen looked out of in [[865: Nanobots]]; I recall at least one other with a large window, but can't recall the circumstances at the moment). Noting that the ISS's {{w|Cupola (ISS module)|cupola}} is probably the most "windowy window" actually in use, due to practical concerns that I'm sure we'd all have about a huge (necessarily thick) spread of 'glass' that's needed in this sort of scene for aesthetic reasons.
:Not as bad as "Hollywood"-type submersible picture-windows, of course. You have to resist no more than one atmosphere of pressure, outwards, in space. You have to resist multiple atmosphere's of pressure, ''inwards'', at depth. A hemispherical bubble-end (or a symmetric slice of one) could be adopted from deep-sea applications, but the window would have to bulge inwards for best strength and safety purposes against the outwards pressure, making a more awkward method of viewing at all angles (and possibly distorting astronomical photographs in ways that reduce their convenient usefulness). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 12:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::My point was that in the picture, I think there are 2 bulkheads - the main greebled wall facing us that contains the large oval window (the backdrop of a stage, if you like), and a small part of a second wall at an angle to the first visible at the right edge of the frame (stage left). We can assume that the narrow strip between the two is some kind of corner reinforcement, and there’s a rectangular greeble that changes shape as it goes around that corner, indicating this is probably not just some kind of vertical conduit. However, there is no 3rd bulkhead to stage right… the window is embedded in the main backdrop. My lazy viewing wants to interpret the large round window as being circular, in the stage right bulkhead - but there is no stage right bulkhead, we only have visibility of the backdrop and a fraction of stage left. Therefore, the original description of an oval window is spot-on… but deliberately or otherwise, the artist is messing with my head. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.18|172.70.85.18]] 07:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::It took a while to work out what you meant...
:::*You: The left-sweep of bulkhead is perpendicular to the camera, the 'greeble line' is a convex corner (pointing towards us) leading to a wall that goes away from us, at an angle that might have agreed with the 'circle at an angle' viewing angle.
:::*Me: Left-sweep is either fully or partly at that angle, agreeing with the window (and the edges of the window/wall-features, many of which have relief features that stand out in perspective to the left more than their rights)... it ''may'' subtly curve back to being camera-perpendicular as we reach the corner. The corner is concave, the 'stage right' wall past the greeble line heads back towards us, or at least less away. (Consistent with an internal bulkhead, separating another section of space-station, rather than an externally-flush one round a constructed corner. But could also be flush with a normal 'box corner' of the station.)
:::Note the corner-greeble's short tranverse curves that hint more at a low camera angle and a 90-degree angle (slightly flush 45-degree 'flat'ish attachment) rather than high angle and a 270-degree one (would have to wrap around as a corner protector).
:::But, as with all ambiguous perspectives, may depend on which way your eye 'snaps' to understanding it the first time. I had to 'unfocus/refocus’ to comprehend the opposite to my first impression (then I just needed to 'blink', mentally, to pop my internal visualisation across the divide). I probably picked up on the wall-features' innate angled perspective and that then let the rest fall into place. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.231|172.70.160.231]] 08:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Actually, I think the description (stage-left and stage-right) was assuming that if there was an (inward angled) wall on the right (stage-left) that there should be an inward-angled wall (stage-left) in front of the 'camera view' if stage-front were angled out, not more or less directly pointed towards the camera. Though this presupposes that the window-wall isn't so much longer than seen (it could have multiple circular portholes, like that, out of view; or just be assymetric) so we can still be 'within the stage' with SL backdrop behnd us.
:::But I also noted the obvious angle of all the window-wall features that weren't so flush as to not significantly stand out. Which means I'm also happy with it being circular. Whether or not we're "breaking the ''third'' wall" (a not unknown scenic convention) in order to get this particular angled view. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.174|172.70.86.174]] 09:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is basically the plot of Seveneves [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.196|162.158.33.196]] 08:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see why they wanna stay in space today, and probably forever tbh [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.231|172.70.160.231]] 10:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly concerned that nobody else is concerned that the astronauts will die from 8 MONTHS in space. Unless I'm wrong, prolonged space stays usually lead to atrophy of pretty much every human organ due to the nonexistence of gravity, right? But they'll be there for 8 months... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.84|172.69.71.84]] 18:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:they’ve had rigorous training, exercise for at least 2 hours a day on the ISS, and 8 months is nowhere close to the 437 day record for the longest stay in space [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

::Ah ok, but still. To paraphrase Hitchhiker's "2 years is a long time to get stranded anywhere, especially somewhere as mind-bogglingly dull as the Earth". Change the variables and you get the point. At least they're probably fine [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.167|172.71.22.167]] 21:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This turnaround of perspectives also showed up in the title text of [[2287: Pathogen_Resistance]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.97|172.69.134.97]] 19:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote the initial transcript, I just said a "planet" was visible through the window. I didn't want to say it was Earth because the landmasses shown don't look like any Earth continents. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:AFAIK mankind/NASA doesn't have a space station orbiting any other planet, and this comic isn't joining some science fiction universe. :) There's "cautious" then there's "overly cautious", :) Randall being too lazy/not bothered to pick actual landmasses isn't grounds for uncertainty. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:White blobs could be clouds rather than landmasses. Perhaps Randall is accurately depicting a stormy Pacific.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.191|162.158.155.191]] 00:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

'''''Strongly''''' reminded of Big Bang Theory, when Howard went to space, the trip home got similarly delayed and he started freaking out. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

An actually citation in an explain XKCD article? Impossible! [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 06:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:2978: Stranded

2026-05-14T06:32:31Z

RG:

Talk:3242: Aperiodic Table

2026-05-14T03:20:44Z

RG:

And the award for turning the periodic table into Chutes and Ladders goes to... 18:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:I don't see any chutes or ladders (or snakes for that matter), so this looks more like Candyland. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B02D:5F1A:A53B:AB2A:3F1B:CF1D|2600:1001:B02D:5F1A:A53B:AB2A:3F1B:CF1D]] 23:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

FIRST! also how has this not been explained? explain it! {{unsigned ip|2605:59c8:22e3:3e14:2583:32c8:f9de:2888|18:31, 6 May 2026}}
:Actually, I was first, I just took a while explaining it. {{unsigned|Teddy|18:46, 6 May 2026}}
:Well, you weren't first, were you. Moved you to chronologically after the actual first comment here. HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey guys, don't forget to sign your comments with 4 tildes. 18:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hmm, something seems to be wrong with the signature code. It's putting in the timestamp, but not the username. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
::And now the username is back! [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:::If you sign with "<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>" (''five'' tildes), you get just "20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)" (for this edit, note that it is identical to the timestamp this edit's end-signature of four tildes will have given). You/whoever else might have accidentally done that. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The first paragraph currently ends with "and the elements increase in size when reading it left-to-right and top-to-bottom (like a book)." This is incorrect. Actually, they do get larger going down a column, but they get smaller going left to right along a row. This causes a staircase effect. The short explanation is that as you add protons, they pull in the electron cloud more tightly, making the atom smaller, but when you add an electron in a new primary energy level, it's enough larger to overcome the effect of the additional protons resulting in a larger atom. [https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/06:_The_Periodic_Table/6.15:_Periodic_Trends-_Atomic_Radius This page] has a more complete explanation. So, should we just remove the claim that the atoms get larger in size? We could make it accurate, but I'm not sure how to phrase it in a way which actually adds to the explanation. [[User:Mootstrap|Mootstrap]] ([[User talk:Mootstrap|talk]]) 20:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:Increase in 'size' is differently interpretable. The atomic number itself increases. The typical nucleon count/atomic weight (''almost'' identically) tends to rise (give or take choice of isotopic variation), and the nucleus itself will therefore be larger by the same degree (if not slightly more, for the same reason as the electron shells/orbitals get pulled inwards a bit for any given model) if that's something that you care to measure.
:Maybe just a different word, to replace the ambiguous "size". Although I'm also personally not enamoured of the "like a book" bit, which seems to be trying to just say that the table ''isn't'' unusually ordered, like it potentially could have been (e.g. a bottom-up version). [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The "they don't have enough enrichment in their enclosures" is a suggestion that scientists are being treated as zoo animals, and unless they have enough toys to play with they start coming up with strange concepts. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 21:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that element 81 in the table is incorrectly labeled “Ti” (as in titanium) instead of “Tl” (Thallium) [[User:Vekkizunt|Vekkizunt]] ([[User talk:Vekkizunt|talk]]) 21:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:Strange that Name Explain had a YouTube video recently, where he made the same error. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 21:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
::The colors are also peculiar to me, in particular, why is hydrogen colored as an alkali metal, or bismuth colored as a metalloid? [[User:Vekkizunt|Vekkizunt]] ([[User talk:Vekkizunt|talk]]) 21:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hydrogen is generally placed as "Group 1", as per the actual Alkali Metals. Unless you 'float' Hydrogen (and sometimes even Helium, not actually above Group 18) as entirely apart from the rest of the table, there's no better placement than above the left-(and right-)most column.
:::Metaloid classification is... fuzzy. Bismith ''is'' metaloid, for some listings/tables, as well as others just off the 'main sequence' diagonal. Or it's one of the other metalloid-like subset demarcations that float around the potentially rather variably-defined metal/non-metal demarcation line. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It's... not a table though? So wouldn't it be the Aperiodic Non-Table of the elements? {{unsigned ip|198.27.229.162|16:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)}}
:Aperiodic Snake of the Elements 🐍 [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 17:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Am I the only one who started reading all the elements with the Animaniacs 'Yakko's World' song music running through their head? 22:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:You aren't the only one. Someone should do this on youtube.[[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 00:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

By inventing an alternative periodic table layout in this comic, Randall is telling us *HE* doesn't have enough enrichment in his enclosure. Could someone please go enrich his enclosure ASAP? [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:Webcomic artists are a dying species, this is a serious issue, someone notify the Wildlife service. [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 03:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the last sentence of the explanation. This comic is about the genius of the invention of the periodic table. Initially all scientist had was something like it is depicted above, but with some repetition in the properties of the elements (here colors), but not in regular intervals, but in increasing ones, and with holes. The periodic table made sense out of it. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:4091:A245:85A4:B3F7:458A:62CB:C68D|2001:4091:A245:85A4:B3F7:458A:62CB:C68D]] 05:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

May also be a nod to how some paths in some games where they are relevant are randomly chosen. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C0F:2600:1507:76:E696:AF71|2001:4C4E:1C0F:2600:1507:76:E696:AF71]] 13:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed it ended in "cul-de-sac", without any easy way to add more elements? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
:Clearly, the creator of ''this'' periodic table knows something that no other creator of a periodic table knows... There ''are'' no other elements possible, despite what 'normal' theoretical physics says... ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 19:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The "periodic" table is not periodic according to the mathematical definition, since the repetition interval changes.[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 01:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3207: Bad Map Projection: Zero Declination

2026-05-14T02:26:19Z

RG:

First! Can't believe I'm north! [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 03:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:What do you mean that you're north? [[User:This isn't a good name|This isn't a good name]] ([[User talk:This isn't a good name|talk]]) 03:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:You’re north, I’m fourth :) [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 04:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:: Hi fourth! i'm John [[Special:Contributions/45.178.1.151|45.178.1.151]] 05:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi John, I'm Dad. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] (BLM) 11:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Hi Dad, I’m hungry. [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 18:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Hi Hungry, I'm Sister! [[User:RadiantRainwing|K9Dragon23, or RainWingSquares (talk)]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 22:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::What the heck [[User:This isn't a good name|This isn't a good name]] ([[User talk:This isn't a good name|talk]]) 03:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Hi What The Heck! I'm the unending march of time inexorably moving us towards death! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] (BLM) 16:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::...alright! [[User:This isn't a good name|This isn't a good name]] ([[User talk:This isn't a good name|talk]]) 03:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::: Hi ...alright! Do you want a drink? --[[User:Zaphod Beebledoc|Zaphod Beebledoc]] ([[User talk:Zaphod Beebledoc|talk]]) 21:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::: Hi doc, I'm up for it! [[User:This isn't a good name|This isn't a good name]] ([[User talk:This isn't a good name|talk]]) 04:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::: What happened here... Also hello up for it, I'm still north [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 03:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Hi north, I'm Recursion! (March 20th) {{unsigned ip|50.201.30.158|21:56, 20 March 2026}}
I can't figure out what the red arrows are. My best guess is that they indicate the direction that the map was distorted in that area. It would be good if somebody would explain. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 04:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:I think you are right. here's a rough ([https://imgur.com/a/ESLZmYQ map comparison]) [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 05:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
: I thought it might be showing where things are drifting on the map with the current drift of the north pole. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3103:4C:2400:E259:E2C3:5BDD:1111|2A02:3103:4C:2400:E259:E2C3:5BDD:1111]] 10:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a map actually be quite useful to anyone using only a compass to navigate?
[[Special:Contributions/2A06:C701:46AF:2C00:7577:585:1183:EFBD|2A06:C701:46AF:2C00:7577:585:1183:EFBD]] 07:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
: Not much. High-end compasses can be calibrated to compensate for declination. At least, this map would avoid having to recalibrate when changing area. [[User:Shirluban|Shirluban]] [[Special:Contributions/147.161.153.84|147.161.153.84]] 14:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
: Also, navigation using only a compass and a map typically involves angles with landmarks. That's why usual maps use the Mercator projection: it preserves angles. Since this map doesn't [citation needed], it might be problematic. [[User:Shirluban|Shirluban]] [[Special:Contributions/147.161.153.84|147.161.153.84]] 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by the cylindrical projection used for this. I would have expected him to use the geomagnetic dipole for the projection axis, but this would put Ellesmere Island at the top of the map, which is clearly incorrect. Instead he seems to have used the geometric axis for the projection (or maybe the axis between magnetic dip poles, which would be similar in 2025?). This joke would have been better 20 years ago when the dip pole was solidly in Canada. [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 08:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I've honestly seen worse "earnest" attempts at map projections. I might use this in the future just to see if anyone even notices.
[[Special:Contributions/2A00:FBC:F004:3364:B820:80FF:FEA3:938D|2A00:FBC:F004:3364:B820:80FF:FEA3:938D]]

I see the zero line goes more or less through the Rift Valley in East Africa. If the same thing happened a couple of million years ago, it's quite likely every individual in the genus Homo once lived within a couple of degrees of declination.[[Special:Contributions/2A03:E600:100:0:0:0:0:10|2A03:E600:100:0:0:0:0:10]] 14:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I made a [https://awhogue.github.io/zero-declination/output/ map] for the title text. [https://github.com/awhogue/zero-declination Source code]. The answer is 2000. Not sure what the etiquette is for adding it to the explanation. [[User:Ahogue|Ahogue]] ([[User talk:Ahogue|talk]]) 21:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
: This is great. I am not sure about the etiquette either, but please go forward and add :-) --[[Special:Contributions/176.199.210.83|176.199.210.83]] 09:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I would really love to see an animation that morphs back and forth between Mercator and this comic. I say Mercator because I suspect it's what the comic map is based on, the goal is to use whichever well-known projection is closest to the xkcd map. If I had any know-how in this field I might try to make that animation myself, but I'd have a really insane learning curve to do it and it's not worth it. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is definitely the most practical map in the series, I'm sad because I know I'll probably never have a reason to use it. [[Special:Contributions/157.201.96.100|157.201.96.100]] 19:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:I bet somewhere someplace someperson will find a use for this and it will have saved like an hour of work. Probably some time in the 2040's I reckon.[[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 02:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

3205: Carbon Dating

2026-05-14T02:24:52Z

RG: removed incomplete notice

{{comic
| number = 3205
| date = February 9, 2026
| title = Carbon Dating
| image = carbon_dating_2x.png
| imagesize = 250x348px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = This dating is corroborated by the presence of stone tools at the site, rather than earlier and less effective helium ones.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Carbon dating}} is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of {{w|carbon}}. This method is commonly used by {{w|archaeology|archaeologists}} and is invaluable in terms of estimating the point in time a piece of organic matter (such as a fossil) died. It uses the fact that carbon in Earth's biosphere maintains a known ratio between the isotopes 12C, 13C (irrelevant for carbon dating) and 14C. Its intake by living organisms (by photosynthesis, in the case of plants, or by consumption in the case of non-plants, accounting for known {{w|Fractionation of carbon isotopes in oxygenic photosynthesis|fractionation}} differences) is also relatively stable, until the organism dies and stops taking in carbon compounds. From that point on, the relative concentration of 14C in the dead organism can only decrease through radioactive decay. By measuring the relative amount of 14C left in the organism's remains, archaeologists can determine how long ago that organism last actively replenished its carbon, and thus how long ago it died.

Here, however, [[Ponytail]], in the role of a {{w|cosmology|cosmologist}}, takes a rather different perspective on using carbon for dating. She is interested only in the mere ''presence'' of carbon, which tells her that the skeleton being studied was formed after the first carbon in the universe was created in the first round of stars fusing elements, 13.6 billion years ago. This is not useful information for differentiating artifacts originating on {{w|Earth}}, which is itself less than ''5'' billion years old, since it would apply to the vast majority of them.

The title text looks like the kind of statement that would provide corroborative dating evidence for an archaeological site. The type and composition of tools can help to place a site, relative to others, on a {{w|Tool#History|developmental timeline}}. Here, however, they claim that the presence of stone tools dates the site as later than a non-existent age of helium tools. Tools made out of stone, usually dating from the {{w|Stone Age}}, are often solid and durable, making them great choices for heavy duty tasks, and well-preserved in the archaeological record. {{w|Helium}} is a gas and is difficult to shape into a solid mass for use as a tool.{{Citation needed}} It would also be near impossible to identify such tools if they had existed, since they would tend to disperse easily. Helium was produced in great quantities after the {{w|Big Bang}}, accounting for about ~25% of the mass of atoms produced by the early universe, so would have been available before stone was, but there were no people around at the time to fashion tools from it.

14C is generated in the atmosphere by interactions between nitrogen and cosmic rays, and it is radioactive with a half-life of approximately 5,730 years. It decays over time even as it is replenished, leaving its relative concentration in the environment a matter of the balance between its creation (by cosmic rays, which vary slightly over time, but in a way that can be enumerated) and decay (a constant proportion). Carbon dating is a useful method only so long as the remaining concentration of 14C can be measured accurately, which extends to approximately 9 or 10 half-lives (50,000 to 60,000 years) until the continued halving of the remaining isotope becomes statistically or physically difficult to accurately determine, as well as for lengths of time that are significantly ''less'' than this isotope's half-life. Other forms of {{w|radiometric dating}}, based on other elements and isotopes, are used for different lengths of time, as well as situations where such carbon-chemistry is not a reliable component of a sample, or may further validate the result in situations where their respective useful scenarios overlap. Even the ratios between abundances of stable isotopes can vary, providing historical information about things such as temperatures and atmospheric mixing, via {{w|isotope geochemistry}}, as well as in a wider form of {{w|radiometric dating}} for which the presence of stable decay products in a sample can be used to show the original concentrations of subsequently decayed atoms for even better cross-comparison of how much samples such as this will have aged.

The themes of the comic are similar to [[2723]], which imagines a periodic table published just after the Big Bang, when most elements did not yet exist.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Ponytail, standing, is pointing at a blackboard containing a drawing of a skull and some bones/bone fragments, as well as a graph and some lines of text. She is speaking to Cueball and Megan, who are standing beside her.]
:Ponytail: The high carbon content of the skeleton indicates that the individual lived less than 13.6 billion years ago, after the first round of stellar nucleosynthesis.
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Cosmologist carbon dating

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

3223: Inflation Timeline

2026-05-14T02:22:54Z

RG: removed incomplete notice

{{comic
| number = 3223
| date = March 23, 2026
| title = Inflation Timeline
| image = inflation_timeline_2x.png
| imagesize = 423x213px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Depending what corners of the internet you hang out on, 'regular' may at times awkwardly coexist with 'sexy.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Cosmic inflation}} is the theory that the very early universe briefly expanded at an enormous rate. This explains the "clumpiness" of the early universe, which is necessary to explain the formation of large-scale structures (e.g., {{w|galaxies}}, {{w|galaxy clusters}}, {{w|galaxy filaments}}, etc.) as the universe evolved. "Regular" {{w|price inflation}} refers to the economic process in which the average price of goods and services increases over time. This is usually gradual, but can be very rapid during times of economic distress.

The comic puts both of these on the same {{w|Chronology of the universe|timeline of the universe}}. Cosmic inflation occurred very shortly (~10-34 s) after the {{w|Big Bang}}. Regular inflation has only occurred during the time after money started being used, perhaps {{w|History of money|7,000 years ago}}. Because of the logarithmic scale of the graph, the cosmic inflation period, which is only a tiny fraction of a second, looks much larger than regular inflation, which has existed for at least a few thousand years. This misinterpretation is likely [[Randall]]'s intention in the comic, along with conflating two wildly different kinds of "inflation".

The title text refers to a third meaning, that of {{w|body inflation}} as a sexual fetish or kink, which has no direct relationship to cosmology or economics.{{Citation needed}} [[Randall]] points out that body inflation happens at the same time as economic inflation, presumably because both arise from human activities. The suggestion that this coexistence may be "awkward" perhaps implies that people are paying to indulge in the fetish, and that those prices are subject to economic inflation. The "inflation" might also refer to something akin to a {{w|Sex doll|blow-up doll}}.

Another comic illustrating cosmic inflation is [[2240: Timeline of the Universe]].

==Transcript==
:[Label of timeline]: Timeline of Inflation
:[A log-scale timeline labeled "Age of the Universe (seconds)" ranging from 10-44 to about 1025, with labeled tick marks at 10-40, 10-30, and so on until 1020 s. An arrow points from the text "Cosmic" to a bar that begins off-panel to the left and continues up to roughly 10-33 seconds. Another arrow points from the text "Regular" to a second, much thinner bar that covers another period between roughly 1016.9 and 1017.3 seconds.]

==Trivia==
Assuming regular inflation started with the {{w|History of money|first use of money 7,000 years ago}}, the "regular" inflation bar, if accurately displayed, would go from 1017.63856460 to 1017.63856482 seconds, with a difference in the exponents of 0.00000022. Depending on your display resolution, this would make the graph's "regular" bar on the order of a millionth of a pixel wide.

Given that there are only seven secondary tick marks between the primary (labeled) tick marks, these denote not increments of 1 order of magnitude but 1.125 orders of magnitude.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Sex]]