explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

explain xkcd talk:Editor FAQ

2023-10-30T10:09:54Z

172.70.85.205: /* Clarify "removing Discussion (from main comic article) if it gets too long" */ Couple o' typos corrected.

Feel free to enter any question about editing this Wiki and don't forget to sign you comment. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

== Formatting of explanations ==

Many pages contain tables where a definition list would be 1) easier to read 2) mobile friendly, for example: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1957:_2018_CVE_List&oldid=160469 1957].

I was also involved in rewriting the transcript for [[1963]], where the discussion came up about how those should be styled. ("as if you were reading the comic to someone")

I think we should have a small style guide to encourage sane formatting. What else should such guidelines contain?

Edit: One more thing I'd love to see: semantic headlines (i.e. < h3> headlines for explanation subchapters instead of < h2> which is the same level as the explanation itself)

(Sidenote: I've been active on explainxkcd for quite some time, but only now got around making an account.) [[User:Gir|//gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 15:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

:Thanks for your remarks. First: There is no need to start every new sentence at a new line. Tables are meant for small content in all other cases it's bad layout. I recently changed this [[2034: Equations]] to a proper floating text. At the transcript tables should never be used, even when there is a table in the comic image it should be described by text. The guide here was mainly written by me because there was nothing like this here before. Some people already helped and I'm happy for any further remarks to enhance it. And this table issue is definitely one; I just not wanted to be the only (arrogant) layout master. Your help is welcome to write something, otherwise I will do so soon.
:For headlines we don't use HTML-code but WIKI-code. The main headlines are written like this: <nowiki>==Explanation==</nowiki>, <nowiki>==Transcript==</nowiki>, and (optional) <nowiki>==Trivia==</nowiki>. Headlines inside that chapters should be done in this way: <nowiki>;Subtitle</nowiki>. The preceding semicolon causes the entire line to be rendered in bold. Only when the explanation really needs sub-chapters it can be done by this: <nowiki>===Sub header===</nowiki> (three equal signs before and after the text). I will put this also into the FAQ.
:Welcome and thanks for helping. PROTIP: Always use the preview button to check the layout before saving. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::hi, I'm aware about the headlines and stuff, it was just shorter to write it this way in the comment. I see you started a bit with a styleguide already; I hope I can contribute to it next week, when things cool down at work a bit. //gir.st/, who is to lazy to log in [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.190|172.68.51.190]] 06:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So, one more thing, regarding 'What is the proper layout for headers?'. I think we should better use small <code><nowiki>====headings====</nowiki></code> instead of just description titles (<code><nowiki>;bold text</nowiki></code>), since it makes the intent clearer. what is your reasoning behind suggesting it the other way round? greetings, [[User:Gir|//gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 14:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks for your input and of course Wiki markup headers should be valid. I just believe that the simplest way should also be valid for less experienced writers. When a new explanation starts it's often awful and chaotic; giving a simple but effective structure at the beginning helps against this chaos. So, I'm thinking about dividing the section "What is the proper layout for headers?" (it's a question because it's a FAQ) into two subsections:
:*easy: a semicolon, the colon at the following paragraph may be mentioned - but I'm not sure about the colon because it should be ''easy''
:*advanced: <code><nowiki>===headings===</nowiki></code> if the comic really can be divided into chapters; <code><nowiki>====headings====</nowiki></code> as a replacement for the semicolon; and <code><nowiki>==headings==</nowiki></code> is forbidden because it belongs to expl, trnsc, trivia. The semicolon, colon issue should be mentioned here.
:Please consider that there was many chaos in the past and many writers will do their edits without reading this FAQ. So keeping this simple as possible seems to me to be inevitable. And dividing sections by using the semicolon for a header is still much better than many of those tables. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
::Based on this discussion I edited the current comic here: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2037%3A_Supreme_Court_Bracket&type=revision&diff=161880&oldid=161841] and compare it to this former version [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2037:_Supreme_Court_Bracket&diff=prev&oldid=161841]. Do not focus on the edits, just scroll down to the resulting page.
::This brought me to another important issue: NO links in a header. At Wikipedia this is also not welcome. This site isn't Wikipedia but in this case I feel this is a good rule. But the TOC (Table of content) is shown in the preview while it's not at the resulting page. The result is preferred but the TOC in the preview may confuse editors here.
::So, I'm still looking for simple instructions, layouts which advanced people always can enhance.
::And consider that some editors are probably younger than xkcd is. Not sure about this but there are definitely young people here and I welcome them all. And I'm NOT getting old like Randall sometimes feel, I like to support every editor despite any other background. And this has to be simple on the first place. STOP(I could talk much more) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I missed this. I'd personally go with the "advanced" option, but mentioning both is fine too. Nice work on 2037! Really enjoying our conversations about this, I hope i'm not a bother ;-) [[User:Gir|//gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, after a few days and some more edits (for example see here: [[2035: Dark Matter Candidates]]) I believe this would be the best guide:
*<code><nowiki>====headings====</nowiki></code> should be preferred because the advantage is that each header has it's own edit button. One other advantage is that the header text will be shown at the summary in the history.
*The semicolon may be used as a preliminary layout for new comics until it's clear of what content the explanation is composed of.
*On more rare circumstances the <code><nowiki>===headings===</nowiki></code> may divide the explanation into different larger chapters.
*<code><nowiki>==headings==</nowiki></code> is reserved to the general layout and has not to be used.
And I still oppose to the colon at the beginning of any paragraph at all. Any thoughts? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

== Please '''''do not''''' use semicolon-lines as "headings" ==

Hi, sorry to butt in, but I was going to mention this here anyway after I saw it in the FAQ. Please ''don't'' continue to give this advice to editors:
<blockquote>For headlines you have to use Wiki-style code. The simplest way is a preceding semicolon at the beginning of the line which causes the entire line to be rendered in bold.<ref>§ [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ#What_is_the_proper_layout_for_headers.3F|What is the proper layout for headers?]] of the [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|Editor FAQ]]</ref>

====References====
<references/>
</blockquote>

The [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ#In_which_case_tables_are_meaningful_and_when_not.3F|previous Editor FAQ section]] has it right: in wikicode, the semicolon opens a ''description list'', and will be translated into equivalent HTML. In other words, the wikicode is processed as follows:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Wikicode !! HTML
|-
| style="vertical-align:top;" |<pre>; xkcd
: a popular webcomic</pre>
|<pre><dl>
<dt>xkcd</dt>
<dd>a popular webcomic</dd>
</dl></pre>
|}

One or more lines started with a semicolon ''must'' be followed by at least one line that starts with a colon, to provide the <code><dd>...</dd></code> part of the description list block.

It is a {{w|Help:List#Common_mistakes|common mistake}} to use semicolon-lines as "headings". Unfortunately the result is '''invalid HTML''', since the HTML spec requires that a <code><dl></code> block contain:
<blockquote>Zero or more groups each consisting of one or more dt elements followed by one or more dd elements</blockquote>
It's fine to have multiple semicolon-lines in a row (as the HTML standard allows for groups of several <code><dt>...</dt></code> blocks in sequence), but they must '''always''' be followed by at least one <code><dd>...</dd></code> block, created in wikicode by following a line started with a semicolon with another line that starts with a colon.

Just like lines started with <code>*</code> or <code>#</code>, a line started with a <code>;</code> creates a list element, and has syntactic requirements that must be followed. Abusing the description-term wikicode for purposes other than description-list creation not only breaks the HTML on the resulting page, but it makes the content much harder for screen readers and other assistive technologies to parse and accurately reproduce.

(And, yes, technically Mediawiki's use of <code>:</code>-lines for indenting, as on talk pages, is also invalid since it creates a <code><dl><dd>...</dd></dl></code> block with no <code><dt></code> element. So it's bad enough on talk pages, it's 100x worse to encourage doing it on '''article''' pages.) Please consider removing this bad advice from the Editor FAQ. Thanks. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 05:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Thanks for your remarks, that's why I started this FAQ and the discussion about it. Especially the header section is still preliminary, just check the section above here at the talk page.
:My first purpose is to keep it as simple as possible for writers having not much or no knowledge about wiki code or HTML. After that an advanced section should follow and define the rules for a complete article.
:Please check my summary from 29 August 2018 just above here. You're right the semicolon isn't a header, that's why I'm saying it should be used only temporary. And after reading your remarks here I would propose a single line with bold text and a following empty line instead of that semicolon thing.
:Keep it simple for people who just want to write something here; advanced users will change it to an appropriate layout later. Consider: When a new comic is out the explanation often starts in chaos. And for now I'm really happy that the overwhelming usage of tables is stopped.
:Let me know what you do think about the bold text line (not by semicolon) and the more sophisticated header guidance for the final layout as I've mentioned on 29 August 2018. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
::And of course the usage of a semicolon should also be mentioned together with the colon because it's a list. An entire paragraph "How do I format lists?" has still to be written yet. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
::One more: I've checked the definition for <code>dd/dt/dl</code> and it's clear the <code>dd</code> tag must be followed by at least one (either <code>dt</code> or <code>dl</code>) child. This tells me that the indent done by a colon is proper HTML. This is very important because every transcript since the first comic uses this indentation. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:::On one hand, yes, the HTML is technically invalid, but on the other hand, every browser gets the intended layout correct, in no small part because these sorts of errors have been parts of industry-wide regression test suites since the mid-1990s. Asking users to try to achieve completely unnecessary perfection is a waste of time. Even screenreaders are completely unfazed by this nominal flaw. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.36|172.70.211.36]] 01:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

==Incomplete tags==
The FAQ says to use <code><nowiki>{{incomplete transcript|YOUR REASON}}</nowiki></code> but instead of rendering like this (like with the incomplete template):

{{notice|'''This transcript is incomplete:''' ''YOUR REASON'' If you can address this issue, please '''[{{fullurl:{{{target|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} edit the page]!''' Thanks.}}

It renders like this:

{{notice|'''This transcript is incomplete.''' Please help [{{fullurl:{{{target|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} editing] it! Thanks.}}

Can someone please change this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.180|172.68.133.180]] 02:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
:The FAQ also says: "The reason at the transcript is not shown to the viewer." You can see it when you edit the transcript. And because the reason for the comic is also often not given this should be enough for the transcript. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

== math markup ==

Just to note - I was curious about the "math markup" message at the top of each page, and duly followed the link to the Editor FAQ as instructed, but ther--e is no mention of why it shouldn't be used... (no account yet, as I've not made any edits - yet! and i use google data saver, so this is not my ip -->) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.22|162.158.34.22]] 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:damn, I'm tired - just re-read the section titles, and there it is. It's late, so sorry! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.22|162.158.34.22]] 23:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::I think the reason given is incomplete, but wanted to check here before I amended it. Transcripts are for the benefit of visually-challenged visitors, so using math markup, and thus rendering the text as images, is counterproductive. Right? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 15:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

:::The explanation is (in my opinion) somewhat silly, as the image generated by MathML has an alt tag for text browsers/accessible use. Further, if this wiki's settings were chosen correctly, the image would be output with MathML alongside, which is the ''actual'' (non-plaintext) accessible solution for displaying mathematical formulas on the web. See also: https://accessibility.princeton.edu/about/blog/mathml-accessible-math-markup [[User:DimeCadmium|DimeCadmium]] ([[User talk:DimeCadmium|talk]]) 02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

== Create page for new comic ==

Should there be a paragraph about this?
Since the bot is not working anymore, people need to do this. I know I have seen isntructions somewhere on this wiki, but cannot find them... [btw: there is a new comic up, right now, as I post this line, which is not yet in the wiki. SO if you know how to do it, do it before explaining it on the FAQ :)] --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

== Page targeted by Spam ==

The page is currently targeted heavily by Spambots. I am not sure why they target this specific page. It might be, because it is linked in the header? Since Admins (who could protect the FAQ) seem to be currently absent from the page, anyone got any ideas what to do about it? leave it to spam and create a seperate FAQ with the same content? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

== Spaces ==

Seriously, why oh why is [[1285:_Third_Way|1285]] not linked into the statement about the one space / two space [[1285:_Third_Way | controversy]]? This feels like an inexplicable gap. Is there a policy insisting the FAQ remain fastidiously humorless in all ways? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.231|162.158.107.231]] 02:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

== Duplicating the hover text/title in the transcript section? ==

Is there a reason not to duplicate the title/hovertext in the transcript section, so a screenreader user can be sent there and not have to page back up for that bit (besides "one or more editors would need to check all entries and edit it in where missing")? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.43|141.101.68.43]] 00:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
:For my two (or three) cents:
:1) You'd be duplicating it, so you ought to lose the sub-image record if you do that or you could get silly with all kinds of repeating of everything..
:2) It's a Transcript to try to record/present the text (and imagery) you cannot already screen-read.
:3) It doesn't need manual editing (and manual editing is more likely to have mistakes, anyway).
:...Perhaps some Template(-pair?) could be developed to sit post-template to "display:screenreader-only" (or whatever the markup format would be) the upper-templated titletext field? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 04:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

== it's/its typo ==

At §[[explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ#How_do_I_enter_mathematical_or_chemical_formulas.3F| How_do_I_enter_mathematical_or_chemical_formulas?]] please change “it's Wikipedia help page” to “'''its''' Wikipedia help page” (for the same reason that "our" and "their" don't have apostrophes).
[[User:Kurahaupo|Kurahaupo]] ([[User talk:Kurahaupo|talk]]) 23:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
: Came here to say this, but I see I'm two months too late. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 12:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

== Punctuation inside quotes and parentheses ==

Can we add a section saying <tt>."</tt> or <tt>,"</tt> is always better than putting the quotation mark first, and <tt>.)</tt> or <tt>.")</tt> are similarly preferable to <tt>).</tt> and <tt>").</tt> please? We also need to remind editors that numbered hyperlinks come after periods, commas, and parentheses, not before them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 03:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:...Erm. For quotes, it depends. If a proper sentence(-fragment) then I'd put punctuation in front (entry and exit), with ','=>'.' or vice-versa, as required by the full container sentence, but retaining notable exclamation- and question-marks. <tt>He said, "Erm," with a hint of hesitation, "For quotes, it depends."</tt> I know this is how I was taught to deal with quoted speech (close on fifty years ago), although I know standards change, and it may not even then have been so necessary for non-speech quotations. Yet certainly if I were to mention a set of randomish words like "Red green blue" (or "Red", "Green" and "Blue", perhaps) I would unhesitatingly consider it utterly wrong to move punctuation within any such quotation section. And note that an Oxford Comma (even without the quotes) would confuse matters in that second example.
:As for <tt>.)</tt> (etc), I've seen somebody ''wrongly'' do this. Do not do it if you have a in-sentence parenthesis (like this). I have never seen any suggestion that you'd do that (like this.) [<= Deliberately wrong!] And, even if it works "like a quote", it ''really'' looks wrong to me. (The clear exception is when you entirely make a sentence parenthetical, like this.)
:Now, this is just my own experience/preference/habituation. I have no doubt there are alternative points of view, which I would welcome to be added hereafter. But, whilst supporting the ''initial'' idea to precede quotes with punctuation (yet content to let it slip when others have prior authorship and it causes no additional confusion), I rail against it as an unwavering/absolutist style for all quotes ("quotes" ''and'' 'quotes', and maybe even «quotes» and the rest?) and especially it having any bearing at all in any bracketting/bracing/parenthesi(s|z)ing situations where full and proper start/end mark nesting should be adhered to as the ''only'' useful criteria.
:An interesting counter-examplee, however, might even mean individualised punctuation either side of a close-paren (if the sentence somehow does not require the same mark as the aside somehow begs, whether that be exclamation, question or even… ellipsis…?!?). Just so. But I'd normally consider rewriting that, as too stream-of-consciousness-like. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 04:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::This is covered in sections [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_sec005.html 6.5] and [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_sec009.html 6.9] of the ''Chicago Manual of Style''. The intent is to aid readability. The reasons for variation from such style guidelines are evident when they are compelling, but whether a quotation doesn't actually end with a comma is simply not a compelling reason to write typography which distracts the ordinary reader. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 09:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:::(Chicago links need registration to access, so no idea whose arguments/what alternative it supports.)
:::There are many Style Manuals (I'd defer to H. W. Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'', if forced). But, I would say, clarity is king above all. And I think the original suggestion is incorrect in that regard.
:::And depends upon medium. I was taught to put a little finger between words when learning to write with nibbed-pens (and don't smudge/flick the ink!) and a thumb-width indent to each paragraph's first line. Later two spacebars between sentences (and four as indent) when typing.
:::But that's old-hat (and doesn't survive whitespace condensing in XMLish context, etc, anyway). Spell things correctly (or, because of where Randall lives, all Americanised!) and try not to be accidentally ambiguous! And "-1" to original suggestion. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 12:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::::A Google search on, "Fowler's Modern English on quotation," returns the question, "What is the correct punctuation for quotes?," in the second paragraph of results. Clicking on it shows the answer, "Commas and periods always go inside the quotation marks in American English; dashes, colons, and semicolons almost always go outside the quotation marks; question marks and exclamation marks sometimes go inside, sometimes stay outside."[https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/] Does ''Fowler'' diverge from ''Chicago'' in any of these respects? The paywall has a free 30-day trial, and it isn't difficult to find citations to those sections elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 21:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::(On principle, I don't do 'free trials', but that's just me and a comment on being asked to check something that has hoops to it.)
:::::Like I said, ''if forced'', I'd defer to Fowler of the many options, after the clear suggestion that Chicago was effectively the ''Académie Française'' of English, no matter which flavo[u]r of the lingo you're defaulting to. And [https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/british-versus-american-style.html this article is interesting], but I'm not sure I agree with its single-/double-quotes mark primacy suggestion.
:::::Anyway, when it's an actual speech-quoting-quote I'd probably adhere to preceding the quotation marks. But was resonding to OP's (your?) suggestion that it "is always better". And, coincidentally, just there it is not. Furthermore, Fowler does suggest that where a sentence is equally clear with and without punctuation, one should leave it out. I may not always stick to that myself, with an inordinate love of comma-bound sub-clausing, but I find it a decent principle to aspire to.
:::::As for "Foo (bar.)"-form sentences. No. Just no. Though "(Foo bar.)", and then always so in that case! Noting that you've not defended this part of the original idea, so I don't feel the need to continue to flog that aparently terminal equine.
:::::It's all just opinions, however, just to demonstrate my feelings on the subject as sympathetic to the gist of OP's first respondant. I have no idea if OP and Chicago-linker (and, in turn Chicago-trialler) are the same person or just separately of the opposing opinion. Let those who actually administer the site have the ultimate say (if they wish to have), naturally. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.201|172.69.79.201]] 23:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::The reason we don't try to assign identities to the sources of ideas when we discuss them, is because we believe, as Oscar Wilde once said, the value of the idea is greater than the value of the person expressing the idea. Would you please answer the question about whether ''Fowler'' diverges from ''Chicago?'' [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 23:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I have yet to delve into the Windy City's precise text. And Fowler has said much, but how about:
[...] Neatness is the sole consideration; just as the ears may be regarded as not hearing organs, but 'handsome volutes of the human capital', so quotation marks may be welcomed as giving a good picturesque finish to a sentence; those who are of this way of thinking must feel that, if they allowed outside them anything short of fine handsome stops like the exclamation and question marks, they would be countenancing an anticlimax. But they are really mere conservatives, masquerading only as aesthetes; and their conservatism will soon have to yield. Argument on the subject is impossible; it is only a question whether the printer's love for the old ways that seem to him so neat, or the writer's and reader's desire to be understood and to understand fully, is to prevail."
:::::::And later, as part of a conclusion, the interesting:
[...] We recommend that the Times method should be abandoned, and the first or second of the others used according to circumstances.
The next question is, Whence is this income derived?—Times.
The next question is 'Whence is this income derived?'. (Full direct quotation. Observe the 'monstrosity' stop)
The next question is whence this income is derived. (Indirect quotation)
The next question is 'Whence this income is derived'. (Indirect quotation with quotation marks, or half-and-half quotation, like the Borrow sentence)
:::::::Far too much to copypasta. The concluding para just over-eggs my already eggy pudding, so above are just two of the many interesting bits that popped up in the source given at the top of my own definitive search (by exactly the same terms as given above), that demonstrate the evolution of what might be considered acceptible (and why) going into the future, ''[https://www.bartleby.com/116/406.html from 1908]''! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.11|162.158.159.11]] 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

==Math Formatting==
Math formatting seems to be broken. For example, the following (from [[2435: Geothmetic Meandian]]) doesn't compile:

<math>\left(\prod_{i=1}^n x_i\right)^\frac{1}{n} = \sqrt[n]{x_1 x_2 \cdots x_n}</math>

Perhaps a configuration error? The LaTeX markup is correct, and it works on Wikipedia and TeX processing systems like Overleaf, but not here. Simple things like <math>E=mc^2</math> seem to work, but more slightly more advanced things like uppercase greek letters (e.g., ''\Pi'') and delimiters (e.g., ''\left('' or ''\right)'') don't seem to.

Or is this by design, and math formulas really shouldn't be part of explanations? That seems a bit odd to me (especially for an xkcd explanation wiki), but I'm new here and I'm not sure.

:Math formulas should be a part of the explanation. I think this is an error. I am having trouble with this too. I am correcting a formula on 2117. A simple change of superscript positioning triggers the same error for me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.141|172.69.58.141]] 19:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

== Clarify "removing Discussion (from main comic article) if it gets too long" ==

''What'' gets too long: Article or Discussion (or the net sum of both)? How much ''is'' too long? Is there a 'hmm maybe' buffer, given the inconsistencies in application across articles? Do you just scrap {{template|comic discussion}} (noting header-tab to the Talk: page is always there), or do you leave an explanatory surrogate link for the no-longer-embedded section (especially as others may arrive later and presume that it was missed/removed for no good reason, never mind actually disagreeing over the utility...). And do you do it unilaterally/anonymously, or is it better to posit the change (RFC it, on the relevent Talk: page, or perhaps a Community Portal-like global review page/section) ''before'' stepping in to do so without opposing voices?

I can see why it's a sensible guideline, but I'm not confident that it is being consistently applied (one way or another, or both), and it could do with concensus rather than seemingly arbitrary application at the whim of any old editor. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.235|172.70.91.235]] 10:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2704: Faucet

2023-10-30T10:04:20Z

172.70.85.205: Undo revision 327294 by RebaBarker (talk) Spamlink/overwrite.

Are faucet designs considered to be confusing? I'm never confused by normal ones like [https://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/sundsvik-kitchen-faucet-chrome-plated__0756711_pe749051_s5.jpg?f=s these] {{unsigned|Flekkie|02:12, 29 November 2022}}

:Yeah I came here wondering the same thing. Is the joke perhaps not so much that the controls are confusing in terms of intent, but just in terms of determining the bounds? Eg, with two identical faucet controls and identical water pressures, "full blast hot" still translates to something radically different, if one building has a water heater set to 120F and the other building has a water heater set to 160F.{{unsigned ip|172.69.170.189|02:46, 29 November 2022}}

:(I find °F confusing, personally, but...) ...the easiest thing is to have two taps, one hot and one cold. Yes, they can combine into a single spout, but there are various conflicting plusses and minuses of that over having the two independent ones per outlet. Speaking (as I'm sure mixer-tap afficionados worldwide will appreciate) as a Brit. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.24|172.70.85.24]] 03:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

::Relevant Tom Scott video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA Why Britain Uses Separate Hot and Cold Taps]. TL;DR: British houses used to get their hot water from rat-filled cisterns so they wanted to keep the hot water separate from the cold water, and old habits die hard. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.152|162.158.63.152]] 03:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:::Silliness of dual-taps aside, that doesn't solve the issue of identical tap hardware yielding radically different results depending on what the hot water thermostat is set to. Maybe that's not the original joke (I'm still not sure what it was) but it's worth mentioning at least. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.170.146|172.69.170.146]] 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

: I don't think those are confusing, but in many cases the feedback is too slow (e.g. due to the water in the pipes coming from the hot water source having cooled since the tap was last used), or inconvenient (e.g. the pressure of the hot water not being enough to trigger on-demand gas heaters). While theoretically that design allows exploring the whole temperature/pressure space, in practice one needs some trial-and-error and delay to find the correct setting (as Randall points out in the title text) to make it work. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 10:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:It's really a joke we are too European to understand. Visit the US to see faucet control disasters in all their glory. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.203|172.68.51.203]] 10:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Yeah, here in Europe I've seen faucets with mechanical thermostats to regulate the temperature and therefore two dials for either flow or temperature. This was more than 20 years ago. --[[User:Sarsey|Sarsey]] ([[User talk:Sarsey|talk]]) 12:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Funny, the absolute worst faucet I experienced was in this fall in England (which is part of Europe for some definitions but not others). The temperature selection knob had 180° ambiguity---especially for my poor vision when uncorrected---and no barrier between maximum hot and maximum cold. So, I spent a shower thinking I was operating at mid-range and wondering why there seemed to be no middle ground between freezing cold and scalding hot. Fortunately had an epiphany while exploring the town. [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 14:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

: What's hot and what's cold? Do you turn it in the direction of the red to increase the temperature, or do you turn it so that you can see more of the red than the blue to increase the temperature? Taps exist that follow either convention. In the first case, you turn it to the left, while in the second you turn it to the right. That kind of tap is far more confusing than the traditional one with two knobs (though I've also seen a tap with knobs having "chaud" and "froid" on them in a country where French is not an official language without anything else to distinguish them, so I guess even that is not so straight-forward). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.126.15|172.71.126.15]] 21:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:: The design that Flekkie showed has 2 directions of freedom: left-right, and up-down. Left and right is temperature, and isn't "turning" as much as "tilting" in that direction. The effective space is U-shaped. The default position you see is no water. Tilt straight back and you get lukewarm full-pressure water. The back right position is cold full-pressure water. The back left position is hot full-pressure water. To get any other pressure or temperature, just tilt somewhere within that U to get what you need (though very few people do, and just use the 4 positions). [[User:AdmiralMemo|Admiral Memo]] ([[User talk:AdmiralMemo|talk]]) 19:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I sympathize with Randall here; even controls designed to independently control temperature and flow rarely meet both the "intuitive to use at a glance" and "function as described" requirements to make them non-confusing. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 03:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be super simple to just have a slider that goes from hot to cold, and a second one that goes from slow to fast flow? Or one for hot, one for cold, with the higher the slider goes, the more the flow is increased? I don't see how much simpler you can get it. Hell, you could even use a dial for temperature (all dials turn clockwise to increase) with a digital readout. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.44|172.70.131.44]] 05:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

: I suppose the issue with that is that, unlike simple mixer taps that control the flow of hot and cold water independently, relying on the human to find the right mixture that creates the desired flow and temperature, what you're describing requires a more complex system that is able to do that process automatically, so it can't be a simple mechanical valve. It would require temperature and pressure sensors for both the hot and cold water streams, and it would have to dynamically adjust the physical valve settings depending on all six parameters (position of the flow handle/slider/knob, position of the temperature handle/slider/knob, temperature of the hot water, temperature of the cold water, pressure of the hot water, pressure of the cold water). I'm not even sure this is possible with a fully mechanical system — likely some electronics would need to be involved, which might complicate things. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 10:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Re: 'temperature of the hot water, temperature of the cold water, pressure of the hot water, pressure of the cold water' - those sensors already exist, inside the person using the faucet. If the water isn't hot enough, move the control in the hot direction. If the pressure isn't high enough, move that control in the direction that produces greater pressure. The (subjectively) prefect combination doesn't require the controls to be in the same position every time. {{unsigned|162.158.182.20|22:44, 29 November 2022}}

:"one for hot, one for cold, with the higher the slider goes, the more the flow is increased", you just described the standard two faucet system, :) Just, with round "sliders". :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is probably the very first xkcd comic where I have absolutely no idea where Randal is coming from. While different people have different preferences for different designs, I've never heard of anyone being confused by any faucet design.
Maybe he's trolling us, by trying to get a rise out of people wondering what the hell he's talking about? [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:Ummmm, being confused by unfamiliar shower controls is such a common shared experience that it has become a cliche! I'm sure there's an entry on TV Tropes for it, it's so common! (See Big Bang Theory, the very first episode, for an example. The movie Groundhog Day has an adjacent example that I think might not be there without this cliche). It seems weird to think there's anybody who hasn't had this experience, usually when showering in a hotel, or friend's house, or new house... Of course, 30+ years ago this wasn't a problem, everybody had the same two-faucet system, but more recently it seems like every shower has a different system. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This may be a reference to "Design of Everyday Things - Dan Norman" or books in that direction. Although he talked a lot more about creating doors wrong he also mentioned faucet designs as terrible. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.29|198.41.242.29]] 09:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
::  I was initially drawn to the parallel/derivation from the "{{w|Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door|Build a better mousetrap...}}" concept, which vastly predates {{w|Don Norman|''Don''}} Norman. But it's such a widespread trope that I can't be sure it should be mentioned 'officially'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.61|172.70.86.61]] 11:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

: I am actually puzzled by how many people ''don't'' relate to this, judging by the comments here. I guess I've been unlucky with the faucets I've encountered so far? Over the years I've had spontaneous conversations with multiple people abut how tap designs are either inconvenient (i.e. hard to find the right handle positions to produce the desired temperature and flow), or confusing to use, especially for hotel showers. In fact I'm adding this comment mostly so other people who share the same perception don't feel gaslighted or otherwise confused by so many people not recognizing this issue. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 10:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is that hairy? looks like him? [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 10:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think it could be, but he is looking different with the hair and because of the scruffy looks his hair standing up could be because he has torn in it. I think it is better not to include it as a Hairy comic. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it too pedantic to point out the distinction between a helix (the shape of the control) and a spiral (mentioned by the character)? {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.135|10:28, 29 November 2022}}
:Not really, but it could be a very shallow (by radial increase/decrease per turn) 3D spiral, I'm more concerned by the "tightening", wondering if it's a flexible spiral/helix that is manipulated dynamically, rather than merely a tap* with a funny-shaped handle/head to rotate through into the backplate.
::<nowiki>*</nowiki> - 'faucet' just makes me wait for a "force it" pun. It's a very American word that I'm not personally aware of being used throught the rest of the anglosphere. Maybe Canada, but probably not Aus/NZ/etc if my uptake of their TV/film exports is correctly remembered... Somebody may want to correct me on this issue, or add English As A Second Language metrics to this.
:What is also interesting is that the 3D-perspective drawing by our in-frame inventor, upon the perspectivised drawing surface as depicted by Randall, makes it look like very much like an actual sticky-outy object within the drawn world. Like it's actually a moulded/similar relief model/mockup, surrounded by the more standard 'wall notes' used to suggest on-the-go calculations/annotations. An interesting artistic choice (or possibly an unintentional consequence) by Randall. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.61|172.70.86.61]] 11:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be added that the issue is mainly for the US. In Europe, and in the other of the rest of the world - except US - the thermostatic head has replaced most other faucet in shower, and the hand washing is not so much of an issue. My shower in some US hotels were a nightmare, where I remember taking multiple minute to understand how it might work. {{unsigned ip|172.71.130.80|11:03, 29 November 2022}}
:As a North American, I have to say I really don't know what you're describing. HOW do showers work? Controlling the temperature and water pressure??? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be added that the issue is mainly for Europe, especially Americans traveling in Europe. In the USA, where proportioning valves are common and anti-scald protection is mandated by code, controls are both intuitive and safe. {{unsigned ip|172.70.210.49|13:11, 29 November 2022}}
:So funny that these two comments in a row says the opposite. I'm from Denmark and where I sometimes dislike the designs of a faucet I have almost never found one for a tap that was a problem to understand. Sure for a shower there can be some issues, mainly because it can be too hot and problematic to stand under them when turning them on the first time. But it seems to me that this is not a serious problem in Europe. And from reading above it seems like this is in fact a US problem only. But the last comment says the opposite. by the way both sigantures unsigned, so did a check and found they where from two different IP and with time between. Was wondering if someone was trolling by writing the same comment twice with reversed meaning. But seems to not be the case. Have added signatures now. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

::I vote that "confusing faucets" is an American problem. In some places it was hard to set the faucet exactly right (either because of faucet lag, which is the fault of the water lines and not the faucet anyway, or because the controls were highly non-linear around the target I wanted), but the direction in which the controls moved was always fairly clear.
::I have been living in France most of my life, including visits to really old homes. I only ever met faucets of three kinds. In all of them water comes from a single outlet. Type 1 has two flow control knobs (one hot, one cold); type 2 has a single handle that can move in two angular directions (one for temperature, one for flow); type 3 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermostatic_mixing_valve (thermostatic valve)] has one knob for temperature and one knob for flow. Faucets use types 1 and 2, showers can use type 1, 2 or 3. Only type 3 ever confused me the first time, and that was when I was a young child (I would guess age 8 or so?). I suppose the under-the-hood engineering gives rise to all sort of interesting tradeoffs between those three types, but from a user’s perspective they are all reasonable.
::I have traveled to the UK multiple times and lived there for some time. It was mostly the same, though I have seen some dual-taps (essentially type 1 but with one tap per knob). It may be a bad user experience, but it is not confusing.
::I have been to multiple other countries on short trips and do not remember any confusing faucets... except for one US hotel. That devilish shower had a single-knob control; the temperature increased over the whole range, and the flow was maximum at mid-range. I did not mind much that it does not explore the whole shower-space (the trajectory in the flow-temperature diagram was probably a super-optimized curve rather than a straight inverted V); but I did mind that it took a few minutes of exploration to understand what happened. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.126.15|172.71.126.15]] 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:On the contrary, as a North American, I have primarily experienced this issue in North America. :) I mean, in 2020 I spent months in a hospital, each room I was moved to had different controls! (Luckily the last and longest was fairly similar to the second to last). And if you still think it's mostly an American-in-Europe phenomenon, just watch the very first episode of Big Bang Theory, where it's an American requesting assistance getting an American shower working. (Or, you know, this comic by an American about his American experiences).[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

My interpretation is that, for normal people, designing an intuitive faucet is easy: just one knob for temperature and another for flow. But designers seem to get overly creative for faucets and add all sorts of odd handles and gizmos. Figuring out a faucet at a hotel is often a task. Hence, in the comic, the designer is adding some sort of bizarre spiral handle when a regular one would be much easier. It's not that its hard to design a good faucet, but designers seem to have an odd blind spot for them. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.230|172.70.110.230]] 13:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

VERY RELEVANT ASIDE
Why aren't there digital faucets? And if this is such a bold idea It's mine [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.43|172.70.131.43]] 14:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC) paradoxical
:There are digital faucets. Just google "IOT Shower faucet" or "IOT Faucet" I struggle to see any real utility to them however. --[[User:EvilGeniusSkis|EvilGeniusSkis]] ([[User talk:EvilGeniusSkis|talk]]) 17:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
::I find analogue faucets to typically be really difficult to control. Turn knobs are fine, but lifting or turning a single handle like many faucets nowadays have just don't give me enough precision. Now, my hand-eye coordination and fine motor control are bad, but not ''entirely'' terrible. So I think for some people, even turn knobs are going to be annoying to use. So digital inputs would probably make it a lot easier if you have a motor disability. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.108|172.68.51.108]] 20:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:My first thought is because they don't run any electricity lines anywhere near the shower when building bathrooms. Water and electricity is not a good mix. :) I've often seen showers which don't even have light fixtures above them in the ceiling! Bathroom plumbing uses physics alone, the only electricity is in another room with the hot water heater. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Damn, you mean people don't just switch on the tap and cope with cold showers? Damn, major L.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.219.42|172.70.219.42]] 16:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Just this morning, I was in the shower which has a single lever to control the mix of hot and cold water. I always turn it all the way up to get the hot water flowing and then move it down by small degrees until it is just right. With the lag in response for each successive change it takes a seemingly unnecessary amount of time to get it "just right". I would say that it is not so much "confusing" as it is "annoying". In this faucet there is no separate way to control the flow. The flow is maximized when there is an equal amount of hot and cold water, which of course is not necessarily the optimum temperature, because it takes a very small amount of cold water mixed with the hot to make it comfortable. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 17:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the transcript, which says "Below it is a box shape that dispenses water through a circle". What the ???. Can this be changed to, "Below it is a drawing of a spout"? [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 17:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:Well, its not really a box shape since its a 2D drawing and boxes are 3D... so it should say "Below are 3 parallelograms that form a two-dimensional projection of a rectangular prism..." Or maybe, for brevity we can just say "Below it is a drawing of a spout." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.109|162.158.63.109]] 19:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
::I completed the transcript but did not write that sentence. I have now changed to the short suggestion from you two :-) You are allowed to make such small obvious changes your self. Don't be shy :-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

For hotel shower controls, even (especially?) if cleaned regularly, I find that they tend to lose the handy inlaid red and blue textures or overprinting to distiguish the relative functions of chrome or plastic dials and levers. But, even with them visible and discernable, they can be ambiguous. If a dial/rotary component has hot/cold (or flow-control) markings on the fitting it is sat upon then it tends to show which direction to twist it for which change. But if it's marked ''on the dial'' then there's two opposing conventions used for a fairly standard "arrow with increasing line-width towards the head" marker:
:1) Twist the dial in the direction of the more blue bit (incidentally showing more of the opposing red arrow) when you want the cooler temperature, this being a 'turn this way for more "blue water"' sort of thing,
:2) The thicker bit of blue is supposed to be read as aligned to something subtle, like a notch/ridge mark, upon the static backplate, meaning that you should twist the dial in the ''opposite'' direction to bring the "more blue" into play.
...though some (like central-heating radiator controls) do disambuguate this by having the red/blue meshed long thin triangles (and maybe digits/tick-lines to easily establish a position and any small change) hidden within a shroud with just a small window upon the 'meaningful' uppermost/foremost bit of the twisting pattern. Of course, the chances that any one hotel's chosen fitting is easily recognisable as the same as the last one you used in a different hotel (or the last visit to this one!) are not great. I'm sure there's going to be someone who collects "hotel plumbing" photos, or similar, to catalogue their sheer variety. Certainly it's something I might have wished to have started to do, but seems a bit late to begin now. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.53|172.70.91.53]] 19:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:Here's an idea: put a little plastic window on the faucet and have the colour behind it turn red or blue. So depending on how it's made, the blue/red thing turns behind the plastic window, or the window shifts over the blue/red thing. Either way, if you can only see red, it's hot; and if you can only see blue, it's cold. And the colours won't get worn away since they are behind a little window. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.251.121|172.70.251.121]] 21:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You know, it seems like the most common complaint with faucets of any kind is that the sweet spot between hot and cold is so hard to hit. Meanwhile, most of the range is used for various degrees of cold water which barely feel different. It reminds me of linear rgb, where most of the range is used by bright looking shades, with it only getting darker rapidly near the black end. I think a good start for a better faucet would be nonlinear mixing, where the knob gets less "sensitive" as you move it towards hot. This would sacrifice precision for cold temperatures, but how often do you really need a specific cold temperature (aside from fully unheated)? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.81|141.101.76.81]] 08:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Delta makes a tub control/spigot that flummoxes every visitor to my home: The control is single-action [temp] but to turn on the shower you have to pull down a ring under the tip of the spigot. I give a ‘lesson’ to every new visitor now.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.114|172.70.174.114]] 12:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, in all the two-faucet systems I've ever seen in my life, I have NEVER seen or heard of the hot and cold having uneven water pressure or one overpowering the other or the cold premixing into the hot or whatever complications are being invented in the description, ???? Sure, the don't flush the toilet, don't run the washer/dishwasher thing, that's super common and widespread, but that's nothing to do with the two faucet system, that's just the physics of water. And my experiences are VARIED, from up-to-date houses and nicely maintained hotels all the way down to "This cabin barely has indoor plumbing". [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

[https://imgur.com/a/YDcE1La Here is] a system to add to the list. Three taps. Separate Hot and Cold bath taps plus single (one-degree of adjustment, first on/more water then more hot) for the shower. Only took a moment ir two to work it out (without glasses, I hadn't read the notice). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.173|172.70.90.173]] 17:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC) - PS, as I don't have any mainstream social media presence, I was wondering if Kiri at Staverton Park can be mentioned here? The room was as neat and tidy as I might hope to expect, and I wouldn't want to penalise her just because of my failings...

Is this just a Maryland thing?: Every private home I've lived in since moving there has the same horrible one knob / one movement control. Off is the far clockwise position. As you rotate the knob counter-clockwise, both the water pressure and the temperature rise in concert. As a result, the water blasts out of the shower head at full volume at any comfortable setting.

2840: Earth Layers

2023-10-12T10:27:20Z

172.70.85.205: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2840
| date = October 11, 2023
| title = Earth Layers
| image = earth_layers_2x.png
| imagesize = 585x627px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Earth's magnetic field is primarily generated by currents in the liquid outer core, though some geophysicists argue that an unexplained mismatch with models suggests that the Kinder toy contains a magnet.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by GUS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Like this? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic reimagines the internal structure of the earth, mixing the real geological layers of the planet with fictional ones. Some of the fictional layers are appropriated from the layers of other objects that have cross-sectional diagrams, such as the layers of a piece of fruit, an eyeball, an item of confectionary or a building.

{| class="wikitable"
! Layer
! scope="col"| Explanation
|-
! scope="row"| Lithosphere/Crust (50/50 Blend)
| The {{w|lithosphere}} is any outermost rocky layer of a planet. On Earth it consists of the {{w|Earth's crust|crust}} and any parts of the upper mantle (see below) that do not convect. To say they are two distinct layers that could be blended together is rather nonsensical.
|-
! scope="row"| {{w|Upper mantle}}
| An actual layer of the earth's structure.
|-
! scope="row"| Deep mantle
| A pseudo-correct layer of the earth's structure. There is a layer called the {{w|lower mantle}}, which could be what Randall refers to.
|-
! scope="row"| Filler
| This suggests there is space in the earth that was empty, so the creator(s) added some filler to fill up the extra space.
|-
! scope="row"| Vitreous humor
|Vitreous humor ({{w|vitreous body}}) is the transparent gel inside the eye, located between the lens and the retina.
|-
! scope="row"| Mechanical/HVAC layer
| {{w|HVAC}} is an abbreviation for 'Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning' - the system used to heat or cool a building. Tall buildings may have a dedicated "HVAC floor" or "{{w|mechanical floor}}" between regular floors, like an extra layer.
|-
! scope="row"| Guacamole
| {{w|Guacamole}} is a dip or sauce made from avocados. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/guacamole Originating from ancient Mexico], it often includes onions, tomatoes and spices. Notably, guacamole is a major component of seven layer dip, and is shown here to be the seventh layer (from the surface).
|-
! scope="row"| Cytoplasm
|{{w|Cytoplasm}} is the "flesh" of both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells; a jelly-like substance that fills all the otherwise empty space within the cell.
|-
! scope="row"| Cork
|Due to the proximity of the cork layer and the insulation layer, this may possibly be referencing {{w|Cork (material)|cork}}-lined walls, which are used today mostly for high quality soundproofing, but have [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27135713 a considerable history]. Another potential reference could be the fact that baseballs (another spherical shape) have a layer of cork in them (though it is usually in the center). Finally, the cork is a real layer of tissue in many woody plants, part of the bark.
|-
! scope="row"| Insulation
|Probably a reference to the {{w|building insulation}} installed in the walls and ceilings of buildings.
|-
! scope="row"| Seeds
|Part of a fruit.
|-
! scope="row"| {{w|Pith}}
|Part of a tree trunk or the thick spongy layer of the skin of a citrus fruit
|-
! scope="row"| Nougat
|{{w|Nougat}} is a family of confections made with sugar or honey, roasted nuts, whipped egg whites and, sometimes, chopped candied fruit. It often appears as layers within confectionary items (such as Snickers, Double Decker and Mars) and, notably in relation to the comic, it constitutes the second-innermost layer of {{w|Mozartkugel}}n, a spherical confection.
|-
! scope="row"| {{w|Outer core}}
| An actual layer of the earth's structure.
|-
! scope="row"| {{w|Inner core}}
| An actual layer of the earth's structure.
|-
! scope="row"| Secret core
| Likely references secret compartments that may be hidden in the hardest to find recesses of other objects or structures, for the purposes of concealing precious items or closely-guarded secrets.
|-
! scope="row"| Kinder toy capsule
| A {{w|Kinder (brand)|Kinder}} toy is a reference to a chocolate egg-shaped confection by the Kinder brand, the {{w|Kinder Surprise}}, a chocolate shell with a plastic 'yolk' capsule in the center. Though that is loose within a void, unlike this 'Earth model', it closely matches this philosophy despite (or because of) being a banned food item in the United States.
It is widely believed that this is because the 'yolk' can be a choking hazard, despite the fact that you'd have to be swallowing a chicken egg-sized confectionery in a single mouthful for that to happen accidentally, or deliberately try to consume the plastic capsule whole. The toys within, however, may contain small pieces that can pose a choking hazard, especially in the toys that are packed as components, requiring some assembly, in order to fit into the capsule. Rules about small components (in toys for young children) and the inclusion of non-food contents within food-items have been used to prohibit this product within the US. To specifically overcome the latter regulations, the {{w|Kinder Joy}} was developed; an egg-shaped packaging containing the chocolate treat in one half and the toy separately within the other.

Randall's punchline of the comic is that there may indeed be a hidden toy at the center of the Earth. The title text explains that due to the {{w|Earth's magnetic field|geomagnetic field}} not behaving as scientific models suggest it should, some geophysicists argue that the hidden toy is – or at least contains – some additional form of magnet which impacts the accepted {{w|Magnetohydrodynamics|magnetohydrodynamic}} effect. A more plausible explanation is that their model is wrong because they've based it on Randall's diagram full of spurious layers!
|}

Since the radius of the earth is 6371 km, Randall allocates an average layer thickness of 342 km (as measured from the diagram). This gives the Kinder Toy Capsule having a radius of about 900 km. This gives the Kinder Toy Capsule a volume of just over 3 billion km3. Assuming a real Kinder Egg has a volume of 60 cm3, and a packing density of 63.5%, the Kinder Toy Capsule could contain 5x1022 (50 sextillion) actual Kinder Eggs.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:The layers of the Earth

:Lithosphere/crust (50/50 blend)
:Upper mantle
:Deep mantle
:Filler
:Vitreous humor
:Mechanical/HVAC layer
:Guacamole
:Cytoplasm
:Cork
:Insulation
:Seeds
:Pith
:Nougat
:Outer core
:Inner core
:Secret core
:Kinder toy capsule

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Food]]

Talk:2829: Iceberg Efficiency

2023-09-16T15:31:11Z

172.70.85.205:

BH clearly isn't Freudian. For the {{w|File:Structural-Iceberg.svg|Iceberg of the Mind}}, the most important part is the 90% of it that is ''hidden''. Which makes for a totally ''different'' (and potentially more implementable) solution whenever you happen to consider that the most important function of an iceberg is to sneak up on ships... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.68|172.71.178.68]] 13:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

i added a transcript hopefully it isn't horrible [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
:Tweaked (slightly, to personal descriptive tastes), but definitely not horrible. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.7|172.70.86.7]] 14:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have knowledge of aerogels being infused with helium? I'm assuming it wouldn't be too outlandish to do so, but honestly don't have a lot of experience with them. [[User:Fifteen12|Fifteen12]] ([[User talk:Fifteen12|talk]]) 14:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
:It'd be complex. Most are 'open cell', so need an external coating. Or "pockets of helium" could mean small helium-filled ballonettes embedded within aerogel; being uniformly externally supported by the aerogel, these pockets could be structurally less bulky than traditional bladders of lift-gas (still need to be impermeable, but without the inflate-stretching of rubber, can be a more 'delicate but efficient' material, perhaps [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/27257/Graphene-displays-unexpected-permeability graphene]). You could (also?) coat the outside of the aerogel, but adding an arbitrarily large envelope of such a membrane around helium-infused aerogel and then adding more (normally aerated) aerogel onto the outside as additional buffer/structural precaution might be wise(r), as you go ship-hunting... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.61|141.101.98.61]] 15:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems ChatGPT was use to write the description text? The contributor share in on XKCD's euphoria channel: https://chat.openai.com/share/02006f2e-cca5-4518-8fb4-f9176b39512e [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.117|188.114.111.117]] 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What aerogel would break down in water? From what I've seen, I thought most aerogel was made of silica? (There's actually no gel left in an aerogel; the gel is replaced by gases.) Is this an error produced by ChatGPT? Since my searches just now have turned up no mention of aerogel being made water soluble, I'm removing that statement for now; if someone has a citation supporting it, we could add it back in? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
:Wikipedia has a section on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel#Waterproofing waterproofing aerogels] which talks about "hyrodoxyl groups...causing [the aerogel] to catastrophically dissolve in the water". However, the [https://www.vsl.cua.edu/cua_phy/images/c/cf/Aerogel_Aerlon_SilicaAerogels.pdf source it cites] clarifies that this is only for aerogels made with a certain process. Other aerogels can be easily made that invert the hydrodoxyl groups and prevent structural breakdown, resulting in hydrophobic aerogels. I presume Black Hat would be smart enough to get his chemistry right. I agree with removing that part.[[User:Fifteen12|Fifteen12]] ([[User talk:Fifteen12|talk]]) 01:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not filling the aerogel with hydrogen? You might save for torpedoes then. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"God himself couldn't sink this ship." That's just giving Murphy a temptation far too great to resist. Naval architect Thomas Andrews, the leader of the Titanic's design team, knew exactly how much damage his ship could sustain and stay afloat, and he knew that the damage inflicted by the iceberg was too great to sustain. He [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews#Death did not survive the sinking.] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.82|172.69.33.82]] 22:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't helium be a better choice for the low-mass pursuit iceberg? Not only is hydrogen even lighter than helium, it can combust when exposed to heat and oxygen, making the limited kinetic energy of a collision less relevant. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 14:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
:Assume you meant "Wouldn't hydrogen be a better choice...", from context/rest of your argument. In which case, pperhaps a floating(-in-air!) iceberg that attacks just the ''one'' ship is considered less efficient than one which can (potentially) attack several..? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.205|172.70.85.205]] 15:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

2785: Marble Run

2023-06-07T13:59:27Z

172.70.85.205: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2785
| date = June 5, 2023
| title = Marble Run
| image = marble_run_2x.png
| imagesize = 438x512px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I have so many plans. It would incorporate a Galton board, a Ranque-Hilsch marble vortex tube, and a compartment lined with pinball bouncers with a camera-and-servo Maxwell's Demon that separated the balls into fast and slow sides.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by MAXWELL'S DEMON - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT roll away this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|Rube Goldberg machine}} is a fancifully complex system (either real or imagined), which makes use of an overly elaborate chain of actions. The name comes from an American cartoonist who was one of those who became famous for depicting convoluted and outlandish processes for accomplishing simple tasks.

There's a long history of people building actual contraptions along these lines. Such devices are almost never intended for practical purposes, but exist entirely for entertainment, and as an exercise in building complex and carefully planned systems. This has become particularly common in the internet age, as videos of particularly interesting examples can gain popularity online. The most common category of these systems is probably the marble run (also known as a {{w|rolling ball sculpture}}), in which the goal of the system is to move one or more balls or marbles from the beginning of the arrangement to the end in interesting ways. This contrasts to the {{w|Domino toppling|domino run}} where motions are transferred by many intermediate pieces painstakingly arranged, although both aspects are commonly combined in such contrivances.

When [[Megan]] tries to show [[Cueball]] an example of such a video, he refuses, not because he lacks interest, but because of how he predicts it will impact him. Cueball (likely as a stand-in for [[Randall]]), has sufficiently strong interest in things like designing, building and engineering complexity that he's certain he will eventually adopt building such systems as a hobby, and that it will dominate his time and attention. Accordingly, he appears to be deliberately delaying his exposure to them so that he can continue to pursue other hobbies, with the assumption that he will eventually succumb to this one. Randall foresees the amount of time he might use if he first began trying to construct his ideas into a marble run.

Megan responds that he knows where he's going, but is taking "a really interesting and circuitous path" to get there. This draws a parallel between the type of systems he's avoiding and his approach to life more generally, which Cueball expands upon by suggesting he would do some of the things a marble typically would in a marble run.

The title text mentions specific ideas Cueball plans to incorporate into such a set-up.

A {{w|Galton board}} is a device that distributes falling balls into a {{w|normal distribution}}. Its design is similar to those used in {{w|pachinko}}-style games.

A Ranque-Hilsch {{w|Vortex tube}} is a device for separating compressed gas into hot and cold streams. While such a device isn't directly applicable to marbles, one can imagine using the principle to separate a stream of marbles based on speed.

Pinball bouncers are properly supposed to be the {{w|Pinball#Bumpers|Bumpers}} in {{w|Pinball}} machines. In Randall's marble run there will be a compartment where the walls are lined with these bumpers. Supposedly there will be many marbles on the floor of this segment of the run, which will hit these bumpers and get a kick so they will move fast and randomly around the compartment, which is where the Demon comes in.

{{w|Maxwell's Demon}} is a thought experiment by James Clerk Maxwell which would violate the {{w|Second Law of Thermodynamics}}. Maxwell proposed that, if a container of air was separated by a divider, with a door that allowed only one molecule through at a time, and a theoretical "demon" were to control the door to sort high-energy atoms into one side and low-energy atoms into the other, the two sides would develop a temperature difference with no energy input. The problems are many: first of all, how would the door open and close without using energy; and how would the demon gain knowledge of the speed and position of all the molecules, particularly at the same time, in violation of Heisenberg's {{w|uncertainty principle}}?

Randall's version of this apparently involves a large number of marbles bouncing around inside the bouncer-lined compartment, with an automated system to divert the fastest moving marbles into one side, and the slowest moving into the other, presumably to output higher velocity balls into one subsequent part of the arrangement, and slower ones into another. As these are macroscopic scales this would not be impossible, just really difficult.

Knowing Randall and his fans, some might design something using his ideas from this comic.

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

:[Megan is walking towards Cueball and showing her phone. Cueball holds a hand to his face and looks away.]
:Megan: Check out this cool video of a Rube Goldberg marble run.
:Cueball: No! Not yet.

:[Megan has lowered her phone. Cueball has his hand in a fist.]
:Cueball: I've always known I'm doomed to eventually become one of those people who builds elaborate marble runs in their garage.
:Cueball: I can feel the pull.
:Cueball: So satisfying.

:[Close-up on Cueball.]
:Cueball: I just want to do as many other things as I can before I give in and disappear into that world.

:[Megan and Cueball are walking.]
:Megan: So you know where you're going to end up, but you're trying to take a really interesting and circuitous path to get there.
:Cueball: Exactly. Bounce around, maybe go off a few jumps.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:2308: Mount St. Helens

2023-05-26T09:37:44Z

172.70.85.205:

I'm just excited that he mentioned my home state [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.251|108.162.246.251]] 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the wiggles in all the hand-drawn lines are actually more than the changes in height of the various mountains, and almost certainly not correlated to the actual changes in height, since this is all unknown. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This comic needs to be translated to non-retard units [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.212|162.158.155.212]] 07:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC) <-- don't use "retard." That's really gay. [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 11:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

:We can't expect everyone to be scientifically literate enough to understand measuring things with the planck length, superior though it may be. Besides, these are American mountains, so they're measured in American units. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.251|108.162.246.251]] 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:It's pretty common to measure things in years. And while measuring in 20 year gaps isn't normal, I wouldn't call it retarded, especially when they're probably chosen for a good visual spacing. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 08:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Maybe he meant feet, which is not a SI unit. I guess the user got the wrong feet out of bed this morning? ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:All twentyish attoparsecs, you mean? (Yanks like using measures that give them bigger numbers. Feet instead of metres, inches instead of metres (or feet-and-inches), pounds instead of kilos (or stones-and-kilos), US gallons instead of UK ones, the wrong sort of billion/etc. :P ) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.76|162.158.159.76]] 11:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::I think the graph should be labeled in seconds. I mean, gigaseconds for time and light microseconds for distance. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::You know what? You’re mostly right (and this is coming from and American!), but I disagree with the “billion” thing. The US way makes more sense and is more common, anyway. [[User:Trogdor147|Trogdor147]] ([[User talk:Trogdor147|talk]]) 04:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I've gotten used to large figures as displayed in 'idle games' (after sufficient progression), where I can make the conversion of "15.2T" or "3.95Qi" or "657No" to pure values with the correct number of zeros if I need to.
:::I have to take the whole part, the fractional digits (padded up to three, with zeroes) then three times the suffix's 'number' (maybe M=1, B=2, T=3, (Qu/Qa)/Q, Qi/q (latter is case-differentiated "Q"uadrillion from "q"uintillion, where sticking to one-char suffixes), He/S, (Se/Sp)/s, Oc/O, No/N, (De/Dc)/D=10, then often aa=11, ab=12 and onwards; not sure if 20 would be "aj" as next in a lower-case lower-case base26ish progression ("az"+1="ba") or go for "b(z?)" then "ba" for 21 in "alpha-coded decimal" where "aaa" would appear at 111-illions... I've never yet had to deal with such magnitudes). Anyway, 'simple'. Ish. (Though I find that "35O" in typical fonts can look too much like "Three hundred and fifty" rather than the actual "Thirty-five Octillion", for apps that go with that particular coded convention. And "23.5O" only disambiguates easily when you realise a figure never uses fractional non-suffixed numbers and/or doesn't zero-pad to 2DP.)
:::Thus "15 ''200'' 000 000 000" (spaces given for convenience, or instead of the ","/"." thousand separator of choice/localisation), "3 ''950'' 000 000 000 000 000" and "657 ''000'' 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000" for those initially given examples.
:::So there's ''a'' logic to the Short Scale, in deriving the full numbers. But as well as the initial 'whole number' (1<=n<=999) and the suffix 'magnitude padding' you always have to ''add three arbitrary digits'' that represent the (typically two or less) decimal places. A permanent off-by-three adjustment.
:::With the Long Scale, it'd just be straight 6xSuffix digits (the first few being any decimals, then zero-padded). With perhaps something like "Xd" for "X-illiard"s (or "tX" for "thousand X-illion" under traditional British expansion) of this 6x and the directly implied extra 3, or just go for "#####0(.##?)X" format, but the adjustment is at least justified. And you run out of any given run of clearly understandable suffixes at roughly double the magnitude of the point at which ran out of them in the Short version.
:::So, while I wouldn't wish to change the 'standard', I think it's clearly not the more logical or descriptive one.
:::Also note that (excluding the huge 'other scale' populations which actually includes the top two most populous nations) it is clear that [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/EScalas_corta_y_larga.svg Long Scale is not exactly rare]. For example plenty of 'old world' countries with reasonably packed populations, compared with a number of large Short Scale/Short-with-Milliard territories with low densities across most of their sprawling areas (e.g. US, Russia, Brazil, Australia, trans-Sahara nations...). There's the mixed-use ones as well. Canada is steadfastly Anglo-French hybrid in various ways, of ''course'' they're not melded to either system, in one of the largest countries by area (actual or by distorted map area) if you don't like reducing to populations. And in the whole of (most distorted) Antarctica probably most of its few multinational 'inhabitants' instead prefer to resort to SI prefixes and/or powers-of-ten anyway!
:::So "makes more sense"{{Actual citation needed}} and "more common"{{Actual citation needed}} are dubious by almost any definition... IMO! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.205|172.70.85.205]] 09:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:Wow you're so cool and epic for using slurs good job
:1. That was unnecessary. 2. I honestly don’t care what units people use, as long they aren’t super obscure (like furlongs or smoots). 3. Yes, I know this discussion is 3 years old, and I don’t care (also I’m new here and I want to be a part of things). [[User:Trogdor147|Trogdor147]] ([[User talk:Trogdor147|talk]]) 04:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Could be linked to sudden changes to covid-19 charts due to lockdowns [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:It might have been inspired by the art installation where someone cut off the peak (one inch of rock) of Scafell Pike.

According to the wikipedia article, "The eruption ejected more than one cubic mile (4.2 km^3) of material." That's going to be billions of tonnes, rather than the thousands mentioned in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 15:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC) I don't think I'm going to be able to contribute here any more if I keep having to provide free training for Google's image recognition of weird American street scenes. What's a "crosswalk" and what does it look like anyway?
: A "crosswalk" is a "{{w|pedestrian crossing}}" in other types of English). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.124|108.162.215.124]] 16:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the true slope of the line during that transition period is a heck of a lot closer to negative infinity than as drawn. #itsajokedammit [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)