explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T10:02:51Z

172.70.85.128: /* Explanation */ Feel free to revert, if you're just as happy to cha ge the others to Celsiuses/Fahrenheits/etc!

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an TOTALLY CONFORMING TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses the 1742 {{w|Celsius}} scale for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}} (or the related {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}}), which uses the 1724 {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale. The other widely used temperature scale is the 1848 {{w|kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from °Celsius (which, along with °Fahrenheit, is now officially defined relative to kelvins). Kelvins have been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually made in degrees Celsius or kelvin.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also known as "centigrade", was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of kelvins. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) is a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same scale as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.)
<center>Celsius = kelvin - 273.15</center>
<center>kelvin = Celsius + 273.15</center>
While kelvin is very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive to laypersons.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution.
<center>Celsius = (Fahrenheit - 32) × 5/9</center>
<center>Fahrenheit = Celsius × 9/5 + 32</center>
Although those reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity in Anglophone countries because everyday weather conditions usually fall within 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in Randall's home country (the U.S., and its territories), the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making.
<center>Celsius = Réaumur / 0.8</center>
<center>Réaumur = Celsius × 0.8</center>
The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5.
<center>Celsius = (Rømer - 7.5) × 40/21</center>
<center>Rømer = Celsius × 21/40 + 7.5</center>
The Rømer scale is considered the predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, because Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°Ra] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point.
<center>Celsius = (Rankine - 491.67) × 5/9</center>
<center>Rankine = (Celsius + 273.15) × 9/5</center>
Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
<center>Celsius = Newton × 100/33</center>
<center>Newton = Celsius × 33/100</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{Actual citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.<ref>https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43</ref>
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate.
<center>Celsius = (Wedgwood + 8) × 100/1.3</center>
<center>Wedgwood = (Celsius × 1.3/100) - 8</center>
The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,<ref>https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml</ref> when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold.
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</center>
<center>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying -100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness (or cursedness itself) would be Randall's invention. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (possibly to the equivalent of 1.42x1032K, considered [https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198 the maximum attainable physical temperature]) will be negative in this implementation. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
<center>Celsius = 100 - real_Celsius</center>
<center>real_Celsius = 100 - Celsius</center>
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a {{w|Millimetre of mercury|column of mercury}} at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only changed, after his death, in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100:
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15 )</center>
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., the cursedness could be understood as 50/50, or entirely cursed, but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [''sic''] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature</ref> The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)<ref>https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature</ref> The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature</ref>

"Surface" temperatures are measured at 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent the temperature of the air, because temperatures closer to the ground are often quite different due to the heating effects of sunlight (or a lack therof, e.g., at night or under clouds), and the thermal capacity of soil.

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Due to high and average temperature records now increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift more significantly over time, everyday temperatures will vary less.
|}

==Trivia==

Here are the {{w|room temperature}}, water freezing and boiling, {{w|human}} {{w|Thermoregulation|body temperature}}, recommended refridgerator and freezer, warm bath, and hot coffee temperature values for those scales:

;[Warning, not proofread.]

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Room temperature
! Water freezing temperature
! Water boiling temperature
! Body temperature
! Recommended refrigerator temperature
! Recommended freezer temperature
! Warm bath temperature
! Hot coffee temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22 °C || 0 °C || 100 °C || 37 °C || 2.5 °C || -18 °C || 39 °C || 77 °C
|-
| Kelvin || 295 K || 273 K || 373 K || 310 K || 276 K || 255 K || 312 K || 350 K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72 °F || 32 °F || 212 °F || 98.6 °F || 36.5 °F || -0.4 °F || 102 °F || 171 °F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6 °Ré || 0 °Ré || 80 °Ré || 29.6 °Ré || 2 °Ré || -14.4 °Ré || 31.2 °Ré || 61.6 °Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1 °Rø || 7.5 °Rø || 60 °Rø || 26.9 °Rø || 8.8 °Rø || -2 °Rø || 28 °Rø || 47.9 °Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531 °Ra || 492 °Ra || 672 °Ra || 558 °Ra || 496 °Ra || 459 °Ra || 562 °Ra || 630 °Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3 °N || 0 °N || 33 °N || 12.2 °N || 0.8 °N || -5.9 °N || 12.9 °N || 25.4 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || -7.71 °W || -8.00 °W || -6.70 °W || -7.52 °W || -7.97 °W || -8.23 °W || -7.49 °W || -7.00 °W
|-
| Galen || 0.00 || -1.76 || 6.24 || 1.20 || -1.56 || -3.20 || 1.36 || 4.40
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || -21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|}

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

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:2996: CIDABM

2024-10-16T15:28:00Z

172.70.85.128:

Still makes more sense than BRICS. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.144.34|172.71.144.34]] 19:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I for one think Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego is a classic example of an island that does NOT dangle awkwardly at the bottom of a mainland. It's almost a case study in graceful, near-seamless islandic placement relative to the mainland, such that if you informed someone that it's technically an island they may do a double-take and have to squint at a map before they believe you. As further evidence for this perspective, I commend to the reader [[2256: Bad Map Projection: South America]] where IGdTdF is only represented as truly distinct from the mainland in 1 out of the 36 South Americas represented - and this is probably more for comedy value than anything else, since in this map, IGdTdF ITSELF has been replaced by another entire (and extremely small) South America! -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.4|172.68.3.4]] 22:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Very tempted to make an official Explanation addition that if we named the group for the members (like BRICS has been, and which originally had me trying to identify the islads by shape and what initials they might have, before my eyes finally drifted down to their actual names), it would ''almost'' make a very unfortunate initialism indeed. And the one it does make is basically the same in phonetic terms... I won't actually do so. But I am left wondering if this was actually intended as an additional unspoken bit of Randall's humour, in fact. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.94|172.69.195.94]] 23:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I shall create my own island below the UK to join this Coalition. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 06:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

dunon why, but my first thought on the alt-text was that it was a joke about south america being an island below north america. ~~storm. {{unsigned ip|172.69.60.185|11:27, 10 October 2024}}

Anyone else think Sri Lanka is a really weird shape for an island? It just doesn't make sense to me, geologically speaking [[User:Tommyds|Tommyds]] ([[User talk:Tommyds|talk]]) 13:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we should have a [blank] news category. That seems to come up a lot. {{unsigned|Ok123|17:55, 10 October 2024}}
:agreed. I’ll bring it up in the community portal. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 20:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The group flatly rejected the application for membership of North America South of Two Ocean Creek. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 02:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth mentioning the "theory of continental drip", postulated in one of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks Iain Banks]'s novels. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.172|172.70.86.172]] 06:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Tasmania Is an island dangling from a larger island. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 01:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The two small islands marked as dots between Tasmania and the mainland also happen to be part of the Tasmanian state.--[[User:Ozhamada|Ozhamada]] ([[User talk:Ozhamada|talk]]) 02:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:I'm an aussie and that's learning for me! However they aren't marked on the map. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.14|172.68.210.14]] 08:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::It might depend upon what resultion image you're looking at. The two (actually three, two to the right) dots north of Tasmania's corners (King and Flinders/Cape Barren) are marked the grey of the mainland rather than the black of all other points Tasman.
::The south-eastern-edge islands may get a decent showing (in full black), given the resolution, though the anti-aliasing hints at features (e.g. Bruny/Maria) that may or may not be represented there for reasons of typical Randallian illustration.
::For obvious reasons of scale/coverage, though, Macquarie Island doesn't festure at all! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.128|172.70.85.128]] 15:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2995: University Commas

2024-10-08T10:21:09Z

172.70.85.128:

As Wikipedia notes, the {{w|Harvard comma}} is actually a thing, and synonymous with the Oxford comma. It's hard to understand whether Randall was just ignoring that.
It's interesting to also look at how the various commas are meaningful. For instance, the Yale comma here appears to be just plain ungrammatical, you'd never put a comma between a verb and a its direct object; similarly the Cambridge comma and Princeton commas are ungrammatical, you'd never put one after the word "and." The Stanford comma is unambiguously normal and it's not clear how you could have such a list without it (absent replacement with a [Stanford?] semicolon). The Columbia comma is being used to separate "mac and cheese" into "mac, and[,] cheese" which changes the semantic meaning (arguably into something meaningless, but maybe we're listing Apple Computers or even Macintosh apple fruit abbreviated). The MIT comma is a cute programming joke for multiline lists. Maybe there are hidden trick meanings (like MIT) I'm missing. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:On their own, few of them are intrinsically bad, in the right context.
:*"Please, buy" - valid comma. Prefixed subclause (general plea).
:*"Please buy, apples" - valid comma (more specific plea).
:*"apples, mac" - valid comma (list-type).
:*"mac, and" - valid comma (potentially a conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"mac and, cheese" - valid comma (potentially a post-conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"and cheese, milk" - valid comma (follow-up sub-clause).
:*"cheese, milk, and" - Oxford comma. (Thus invalid, by default. IMO.)
:*"milk and, bread." - ...would be valid, as above, except for the sentence ending.
:*"and bread,." - Ok. Definitely the worst. (Except for the Oxford Comma, which is still worserer!)
:Obviously, combinations of them (or counterpart lack of them, in some cases) can clash badly. Some can work well together, but using ()s, ;s or feetnete* is often better than diving in and out of sub-clauses in the midst of a comma-bound list and potentially making it ambiguous whether you're diving in/out of a clarifying aside or replacing a non-terminating conjunction or perhaps one of the other usages to which a comma might apply.
:* Or just generally rewriting a multi-clausal sentence completely! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 23:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Commas can go in a number of places in lists, and, occasionally, after the word "and". [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Potentially, anything is possible... I can see how a sentence like "Please buy apples, mac and cheese, milk, and, bread being out of stock, oats" would work, but I really don't see how the commas after "and" could work ''in this sentence''. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If each item in a list shall be followed by a comma then the MIT comma is quite proper. SDT [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.206|172.68.245.206]] 05:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The UCLA comma may refer to the 8 clap, a chant at UCLA which is begins with a string of 8 claps. {{unsigned ip|172.68.205.178|07:33, 8 October 2024}}

I thought the UCLA & Michigan commas referred to quotes within citations. This isn't uncommon in literary studies, where you quote articles quoting books. Depending on your quotation style, this can result in a long string of 3-4 "commas" (as in: short lines in punctuation marks). If you place the quote between actual commas, make that 4-5. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the tirade against the Oxford comma in the article is not relevant for understanding the comic. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" is not saying that Ayn Rand is the mother. To express that one should write "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and to God". Thus the ambiguity can be resolved. I believe one of the editors is mixing in their personal taste here. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.71|172.71.160.71]] 09:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tirade? Hardly. It explains when it doesn't help (and when it might).
:And I think you misread. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" indeed does not say that Ayn Rand is the mother. In fact it ''explicitly'' says that "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God'"... erm... does ''not'' say the thing that 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' ''potentially'' does. (See table below.)
:The choice of how to disambiguate "my mother, who is Ayn Rand", as a concept, is another thing and has multiple options. Disambiguating in the direction of a simple list is the contention surrounding the Oxford(/Serial) Comma itself (it is, by definition, being used in the list format), given that some circumstances are most helped by it and others are most helped by its absence. If you're strongly for the OC, you'll hopefully rewrite problematic OCed formulations so that you can use it. If you're strongly against it you should change problamatic non-OCed versions so that you can better go without one. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.128|172.70.85.128]] 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Inspired (a bit) by the Three Laws permutation table, a set of possible ambiguations from the straight list...
{| class="wikitable"
!A !!B !!C !!"A, B and C" !!"A, B, and C"
|-
|my parents||Ayn Rand||God||"my parents (who are Ayn Rand and God)"||''list only''*
|-
|my parents||God||Ayn Rand||"my parents (who are God and Ayn Rand)"||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||my parents||God||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||God||my parents||''list only''* ||"Ayn Rand (who is God), and my parents"
|-
|God||my parents||Ayn Rand||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|God||Ayn Rand||my parents||''list only''* ||"God (who is Ayn Rand), and my parents"
|}
:-* - Assuming no other "All You Zombies" and/or divine incarnation scenarios.
:...maybe it's too early in the morning, but I'm sure I'm missing other ambiguities I've commented on before. (Without necesarily going into the asterisked territories.) Anyone want to amend this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.105|172.68.186.105]] 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Love it! [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:483: Fiction Rule of Thumb

2024-10-02T21:00:28Z

172.70.85.128:

Also, you get minus points if you have to add a totally reading-flow rupturing explanation.
And if the words which supposedly come from one language have completely different linguistic structure.
And for random apostrophes.
And if you cannot read the book without a wordlist for constant reference next to you.
Rule of thumb #2: if it's not clear from the context or from a smooth, unobtrusive explanation* and/or if the reader has to go back the second time it is mentioned to remember what it was, don't use it.
:Exception to this: Terry Prachett. How the hell can that guy make funny literature out of annoyingly large footnotes?? [[Special:Contributions/132.187.20.160|132.187.20.160]] 09:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I know an author who made up words and still turned out well! His name is Andrew Hussie, creator of Homestuck. Captchalogue, Sylladex, Alchemiter, Cruxite, Respiteblock, Recuperacoon, Cookalizer, Fenestrated Wall, you name it! {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.47}}
:Well one, that's a webcomic, not a book. Two, most of these words are portamntus (Captcha + Catalogue = Captchalogue, Recuperate + Cocoon = Recuperacoon). And while this is certainly a nice observation, it doesn't really contribute to the discussion since the page is not really about Homestuck.--[[User:Edrobot|Edrobot]] ([[User talk:Edrobot|talk]]) 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

''Dune'' comes to mind... [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 07:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that Randall omitted Shakespeare from the list of people allowed to make up words. Shakespeare used 17,677 different words in all of his known works. About 10% of those words are words that he made up and are now technically official English (includes changing parts of speech for existing words)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.100|108.162.216.100]] 21:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

:I believe that Shakespeare didn't invent 1700 words, although they were at one point attributed to him as earliest known use - especially in the days when searches for early examples were done by hand. Today in many cases earlier examples have since been found. IO9 has an article about it http://io9.gizmodo.com/no-william-shakespeare-did-not-really-invent-1-700-eng-1700049586
:There is also the fact that while some of his plays are the earliest (surviving) example of a word, most of those words must have been known to the public. I can't imagine people going to a performance where they don't recognise a tenth of the words. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.23|141.101.98.23]] 01:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

:What's the problem?
:If you can make up a story you should be able to make up words. A much worse problem is when an author thinks describing scenery is part of the story. And when women stop in mid paragraph to describe clothing... Feck that!
:Making up a word or two to get around shit like that is OK. It is only hand-waving a ghost out from the machine. Asimov was terrible for that crap in his early work. He grew out of it, in a manner of speaking, recognising there was a time and place.

there are many exceptions to this rule... Jhereg, for example.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.116|173.245.51.116]] 10:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised that {{w|A Clockwork Orange}} by Anthony Burgess hasn't been mentioned. It is regularly featured in 'Top 100 Books' lists, but features its own language, Nadsat. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a lot of comments here are based on missunderstanding. The CHANCE that the book is good is lower. It doesn't mean "more made up words" -> "worse book". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.41|108.162.228.41]] 21:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What about Animorphs? There are quite a few made-up words there, and Randall is a fan of Animorphs. Why is Animorphs not mentioned in the title text?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.250|141.101.98.250]] 16:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, writing from Italy here... Dante's Divina Commedia is largely acknowledged as containing tons of made-up words and then-weird sentences that are now common sayings in Italian. And we're talking about one of the world's greatest literature masterpieces ever :) does that count as an exception?
:Most certainly! [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You know, if you don't explain the words and just let readers piece together their meanings with outside context, it's much more acceptable to do this. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 13:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ronald Dahl literally did this so much the language was called "Gobblefunk". No exception there? It gave his stories a delightfully whimsical feel. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.56|19:06, 2 October 2024)}
(