Talk:2638: Extended NFPA Hazard Diamond - Revision history

141.101.98.147 at 05:29, 26 August 2022

2022-08-26T05:29:36Z

172.69.33.175: Reply

2022-08-25T17:50:44Z

172.70.211.36: Compromise proposal

2022-07-14T16:23:55Z

Compromise proposal

172.70.86.64 at 16:06, 14 July 2022

2022-07-14T16:06:25Z

172.68.132.96: undent

2022-07-03T22:36:12Z

undent

172.68.132.96: !vote against

2022-07-03T22:35:39Z

!vote against

172.70.162.77 at 01:28, 3 July 2022

2022-07-03T01:28:36Z

172.70.211.52: Extended reply

2022-07-03T00:33:55Z

Extended reply

172.70.211.52: reply

2022-07-03T00:31:35Z

162.158.34.61 at 23:29, 2 July 2022

2022-07-02T23:29:38Z

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 ::If it wasn't for the parentheses I would agree with you. The argument is far from a "stalemate" and the fact you would suggest it is leads me to think that you care more about advancing an implausible pet theory than providing a high quality explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.175|172.69.33.175]] 17:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 : Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. The link that calls the white square "Special Hazard" is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html Furthermore, what exactly is the joke supposed to be, again? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 * ''and "Special Hazard" is the square description synonym used in the non-Wikipedia reference link at the top of the table'' - not "Special Notice"? (The link may have changed since I first followed it, with interest, as we don't have these diamonds over here, we use {{w|Hazchem}} boards... nothing like seeing a bit of 3YE flammable liquid on the move! ...but whereve I first checked it certainly wasn't "Special Hazard".)
 ...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 : Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. The link that calls the white square "Special Hazard" is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html Furthermore, what exactly is the joke supposed to be, again? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 14 July 2022
Line 51:		Line 51:
	::As it's being argued over again, with an absolutist (or maybe "absolutely not!"-ist) unilateral wish to remove all such speculation, I'm just gonna mention that [[1815\|'unintentional']] and [[2528\|intentional]] literalism is a recurring xkcd theme for depictions of symbolic pennants, whatever the actual degree of intention this time round. From "Ha ha... No, never actually thought to do that" through to "sigh - I shouldn't need to explain the whole joke, folks! You take this far too seriously''[1]'', just enjoy the bits you understand...". If you go and pester Randall on Twitter/whatever and get his word that it's the former, then perhaps you can consign it to "confirmed not to be this", but then you'd be obliged to report the possibility in order to show the refutation itself, so probably counter-productive even if proven correct... ;) Leaving it as "it possibly might be..."/whatever the best wording, however, does not make any insistance that it ''is'', but certainly adds something to the kind of person like me who likes to see what others have gotten from the comic (however wrong). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64\|172.70.86.64]] 16:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)		::As it's being argued over again, with an absolutist (or maybe "absolutely not!"-ist) unilateral wish to remove all such speculation, I'm just gonna mention that [[1815\|'unintentional']] and [[2528\|intentional]] literalism is a recurring xkcd theme for depictions of symbolic pennants, whatever the actual degree of intention this time round. From "Ha ha... No, never actually thought to do that" through to "sigh - I shouldn't need to explain the whole joke, folks! You take this far too seriously''[1]'', just enjoy the bits you understand...". If you go and pester Randall on Twitter/whatever and get his word that it's the former, then perhaps you can consign it to "confirmed not to be this", but then you'd be obliged to report the possibility in order to show the refutation itself, so probably counter-productive even if proven correct... ;) Leaving it as "it possibly might be..."/whatever the best wording, however, does not make any insistance that it ''is'', but certainly adds something to the kind of person like me who likes to see what others have gotten from the comic (however wrong). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64\|172.70.86.64]] 16:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
	:::[1] Incidentally, I think I'd be right to say that sometimes we do! Often even! ^_^		:::[1] Incidentally, I think I'd be right to say that sometimes we do! Often even! ^_^
		+	::::I have proposed a [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2638:_Extended_NFPA_Hazard_Diamond&diff=288836&oldid=288828 compromise using small text.] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.36\|172.70.211.36]] 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 14 July 2022
Line 48:		Line 48:

	:I agree with 172.70.211.52 that this is a mistaken idea and should be removed from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		:I agree with 172.70.211.52 that this is a mistaken idea and should be removed from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	::As it's being argued over again, with an absolutist (or maybe "absolutely not!"-ist) unilateral wish to remove all such speculation, I'm just gonna mention that [[1815\|'unintentional']] and [[2528\|intentional]] literalism is a recurring xkcd theme for depictions of symbolic pennants, whatever the actual degree of intention this time round. From "Ha ha... No, never actually thought to do that" through to "sigh - I shouldn't need to explain the whole joke, folks! You take this far too seriously''[1]'', just enjoy the bits you understand...". If you go and pester Randall on Twitter/whatever and get his word that it's the former, then perhaps you can consign it to "confirmed not to be this", but then you'd be obliged to report the possibility in order to show the refutation itself, so probably counter-productive even if proven correct... ;) Leaving it as "it possibly might be..."/whatever the best wording, however, does not make any insistance that it ''is'', but certainly adds something to the kind of person like me who likes to see what others have gotten from the comic (however wrong). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64\|172.70.86.64]] 16:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
		+	:::[1] Incidentally, I think I'd be right to say that sometimes we do! Often even! ^_^

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 3 July 2022
Line 47:		Line 47:
	::But whatever.... not my argument.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77\|172.70.162.77]] 01:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		::But whatever.... not my argument.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77\|172.70.162.77]] 01:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

−	::I agree with 172.70.211.52 that this is a mistaken idea and should be removed from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)	+	:I agree with 172.70.211.52 that this is a mistaken idea and should be removed from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 3 July 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:
	::Some other editor said they changed the description of Special Hazard (not the transcripted contents, but the reality of the actual square) to "Special Notice", for apparently good reasons related to some link, IIRC, but maybe that's inconsistencies in how the standards-body documents it or something.		::Some other editor said they changed the description of Special Hazard (not the transcripted contents, but the reality of the actual square) to "Special Notice", for apparently good reasons related to some link, IIRC, but maybe that's inconsistencies in how the standards-body documents it or something.
	::But whatever.... not my argument.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77\|172.70.162.77]] 01:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		::But whatever.... not my argument.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77\|172.70.162.77]] 01:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	::I agree with 172.70.211.52 that this is a mistaken idea and should be removed from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.96\|172.68.132.96]] 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 3 July 2022
Line 43:		Line 43:

	: Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. The link that calls the white square "Special Hazard" is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html Furthermore, what exactly is the joke supposed to be, again? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)		: Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. The link that calls the white square "Special Hazard" is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html Furthermore, what exactly is the joke supposed to be, again? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
		+	::(Isn't most of that already fully covered by 162.etc... New arguments are needed, or write it as maybe/maybe not. I think absolutes are unlikely to prove, either way.)
		+	::Some other editor said they changed the description of Special Hazard (not the transcripted contents, but the reality of the actual square) to "Special Notice", for apparently good reasons related to some link, IIRC, but maybe that's inconsistencies in how the standards-body documents it or something.
		+	::But whatever.... not my argument.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77\|172.70.162.77]] 01:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 3 July 2022
Line 42:		Line 42:
	...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61\|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)		...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61\|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

−	: Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 00:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)	+	: Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. The link that calls the white square "Special Hazard" is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html Furthermore, what exactly is the joke supposed to be, again? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 3 July 2022
Line 41:		Line 41:
	* ''and "Special Hazard" is the square description synonym used in the non-Wikipedia reference link at the top of the table'' - not "Special Notice"? (The link may have changed since I first followed it, with interest, as we don't have these diamonds over here, we use {{w\|Hazchem}} boards... nothing like seeing a bit of 3YE flammable liquid on the move! ...but whereve I first checked it certainly wasn't "Special Hazard".)		* ''and "Special Hazard" is the square description synonym used in the non-Wikipedia reference link at the top of the table'' - not "Special Notice"? (The link may have changed since I first followed it, with interest, as we don't have these diamonds over here, we use {{w\|Hazchem}} boards... nothing like seeing a bit of 3YE flammable liquid on the move! ...but whereve I first checked it certainly wasn't "Special Hazard".)
	...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61\|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)		...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61\|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	: Absolutely not. None of the even non-standard symbols are more than four capital letters long. If Randall had meant the text to be anything other than a description, he would have used '''SH'''. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52\|172.70.211.52]] 00:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ** You would have better mentioned that it's big and entire words, not a diagraph/monograph abbreviation, but you didn't (and I think it wouldn't work as "SH"/whatever anyway, at any level of joke).
 ** Parentheses aren't used for any other non-diagetic label, though we could argue the toss about whether they are the ''replacement'' for the arrow (which I think could have been drawn just as easily) and I think this aspect is a stalemate in this particular argument, but it's one I did consider when thinking about the merits of the various edits.
-* ''and "Special Hazard" is the square description synonym used in the non-Wikipedia reference link at the top of the table'' - not "Special Notice"? (The link may have changed since I first followed it, with interest, but whereve I first checked it certainly wasn't "Special Hazard".
+* ''and "Special Hazard" is the square description synonym used in the non-Wikipedia reference link at the top of the table'' - not "Special Notice"? (The link may have changed since I first followed it, with interest, as we don't have these diamonds over here, we use {{w|Hazchem}} boards... nothing like seeing a bit of 3YE flammable liquid on the move! ...but whereve I first checked it certainly wasn't "Special Hazard".)
 ...I think it is intended as a rather clever self-referential joke. Why leave the square empty, except for the rather boring 'real' description? At least the other three standard sub-diamonds have some food for thought in their indicated values. Very unlike Randall to do ''nothing'' in that space when all kinds of real fun could have been had. I think I also believe (along with at least one other editor out there) that this is the particular fun that he decided to have with it. Much more believable than the alternative, IMO. (YMMV, HTH, HAND, ETLA...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.61|162.158.34.61]] 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)