Talk:2654: Chemtrails

Ants navigate by following trails of chemicals on the ground, so it is technically a correct description, but also lumps ant navigation entomologists with conspiracy nuts.--NyanSequitur (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is that scientists don't call these trails "chemtrails". Cueball has made that mistaken link. Barmar (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I must say that the title-text made me laugh out loud the most. (Also, though I'm sure there's no direct or even impliable link, made me fondly recall Aunt Hillary in Gödel, Escher, Bach, where she does not control or particularly care for her ants and they don't pull her strings in any way that they 'care' about.) 162.158.158.250 16:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

But doesn't the queen spread pheromones that control the whole population, and she is not outside thus not affected by the trails left by her workers. So it is not actually so with ants, wasps, bees and termites that they are actually mind controlled by chemicals released by their government? If I'm right the title text is completely wrong on all levels. --Kynde (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the queen can't be directly affected by signals left outside the nest, but equally, workers outside the nest can't be affected by signals from the queen (except inasmuch as they are mediated by other members of the colony). And the queen's behaviour can be modulated by pheromones released inside the nest - such as increasing or decreasing fertility, or changing the pheromones she releases in response. Ultimately, the queen, like any other ant, can only influence the behaviour of those around her, and only does so in response to signals she herself receives - not in some kind of command control, dictatorial way. 172.70.85.5 09:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Can't quite remember which, but I think there was another comic formatted like this. 172.70.254.165 17:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

It was 2036, the one about graph theory Ph.Ds. 172.70.178.103 18:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the caption have any relation to 2609:_Entwives? I came to this explainxkcd page after reading the comic because I am not familiar with the word "entomologists". I hope somebody who knows the word can add a paragraph about the caption. --Batterystaple (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No, as you can see from the explanation entomologists is one who study insects and this word has been used before in xkcd for that meaning. Nothing to do with Ents. --Kynde (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we need new categories for ants and for chemtrails? I found three other with chemtrails, added to the explanation and I think there is a bunch of ants comics. Added one with an ant researcher as here. --Kynde (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding [1], there's no need for a trivia section, just put those four links in otherwise empty squarebrackets after the first sentence of that paragraph. 172.70.211.88 11:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Whether ant-gland secretion signalling is Turing-equivalent was explored in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" and the Placebo video are trivia, but reasons explaining why the term may be annoying are speculation. 172.69.33.223 11:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are three (possibly four) separate editorships that have tried to impose changes to the article in parallel, more or less. Individually quite sensible (I don't agree completely with all of them, but we're no hive-mind so of course I needn't!) but has created a strange flurry of upheavel. I'm certainly not fighting all my own hills. - Though note that I particularly dislike inexplicable bare-[]ed references in this context, especially if it results in [11][12][13][14] type reflinks interupting the flow. I'd rather like to make context-labelled inline links, as part of a proper sentence, for as many holdovers as we can anong those we end up with. But later, maybe. 172.70.85.5 12:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)