explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2026-04-23T04:55:47Z

Liv2splain: /* Excessive verbosity */ fun fact

<noinclude>{{Community links}}

{|-
|valign="top" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big>Proposals</big></big>

Place for ideas and suggestions to improve the wiki's design and organization on general issues can be incubated for later submission for consensus discussion. Be sure to check whether your proposal has already been submitted. {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=(+post)}}
|}</noinclude>

==ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS==
<div class="plainlinks" style="background:#edf6ff; border:1px solid #a7d7f9; margin:1em auto 1em auto; width:100%; font-size: 120%; padding: 0.5ex; text-align: center;">Most of the discussions on this page have been archived. The archive is available at '''[[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals]]'''.</div>

== Removing unnecessary 3-comic categories? ==

I count eight categories on explainxkcd that satisfy the following properties: 1. They have only three comics in them. 2. They aren't really a comic series; they just feature or reference a comic theme. 3. They aren't Featuring some person or character. In short, they seem to have no real reason to exist. (They're [[:Category:Spice_Girls|t]][[:Category:Wind_turbine|h]]e[[:Category:Ender%27s_Game|s]]o[[:Category:FernGully|n]][[:Category:Giraffes|e]]s.) So my proposal: remove them. -[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 20:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
:In addition, there are [[:Category:Sketches|t]][[:Category:BSD|h]][[:Category:Emacs|i]][[:Category:Identity_Theft|r]][[:Category:Katamari_Damacy|t]][[:Category:Super_Bowl|e]][[:Category:The_Matrix|e]][[:Category:Tournament_bracket|n]][[:Category:Traffic_light| ]][[:Category:Trebuchet|m]][[:Category:Wingsuit|o]][[:Category:Euler_diagrams|r]][[:Category:Pedantic|e]] four-comic categories that also seem rather in need of deletion.
:: Shouldn't the community at least have some time to expand on these categories, in case they're currently incomplete? For example, [[:Category:The Matrix]] is on your list and now contains 7 strips, and [[:Category:Tournament bracket]] got its 5th entry after your post. Even if they're not, a theme category can save some typing in the search box (and is probably also cheaper in terms of server resources than all the searches it'll eliminate). [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 22:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
:::So what do you think the limit should be for categories? Should we create a category when two comics mention the same topic? Three? --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 16:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Three seems reasonable to me, and I could see a case being made for two. Categories aren't expensive. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

== New transcript ==

The transcripts in the comic pages are quite inconsistent, especially in the brackets where you have to describe what happens in the panels. If I understand correctly, the transcripts are for people to copy the text in the comic without having to type them out. If that's the case, then I think propose a new transcript. This transcript should have the comic with the words erased, and then the copy-pasteable words on top of that. Such a transcript would have no room for error, which would let anyone contribute to a seamless transcript.
:The aim of the transcript is to provide a text-only version of the comic that would allow someone who is visually impaired to use a text-to-speech converter to understand the comic and also in a machine readable format for searching (see the [[explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ#What_is_the_format_of_the_transcript_section?|Editor FAQ]]). Anything using mark-up, images or anything other than plain text will interfere with this and so should be avoided in the transcript. [[User:A(l)Chemist|AlChemist]] ([[User talk:A(l)Chemist|talk]]) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al

== Add title text and heading to transcript section ==

It has always bothered me that the transcript did not include the title text since it contributes so much to the humor of the comics. Also, it looks to me like the comic heading is sometimes included as part of the transcript and sometimes left out. I checked the previous proposals and did not see any discussion of these issues. Please consider having a policy going forward of including the heading and the title text within the transcript. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:To my understanding (and also others, see discussion directly above) one of the main points of the transcript is to make the comics searchable, the other is, to make it readable when images are not an option. In both cases the comic's name and the title text mentioned above and below the image should be sufficient. I personally think this convention is fine. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

::Pardon me -- (and, '''<big>''thanks'' for your patience</big>''') -- if this is too off-topic (/slash "boring") or [[wikt:TMI|TMI]] (see {{w|Information overload#Web accuracy}} e.g.), '''...OR''' if this should have been posted elsewhere ...instead of here.

::IMHO the term '''"title text"''' is a misnomer. I think the term is used to refer to the little (or, '''BIG!''') pop-up -- (kinda like what is sometimes called a <code>"tooltip"</code>, but ... aren't those usually pretty '''small?''') -- that appears when one "hovers" his mouse [pointer] over an XKCD cartoon. ...at least, according to '''the "Talk:" page section''' [[Template talk:comic#The template field called .22titletext.22]] which was added almost 3 years ago. I think that calling it a <code>"BONUS text"</code> would be even better than calling it a "caption". However, [to me], '''either one''' of those terms would make sense ''WAY'' more than calling it a '''"title text"''' ... for reasons which are stated in the [Template] "Talk:" page section mentioned (and ... '''LINKED TO''') above. '''<big>Any Comments? . . ''' *** Thanks! *** for listening!</big> --[[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] ([[User talk:Mike Schwartz|talk]]) 08:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Hi Mike, I see your point, and yes, something like "bonus text" might be a bit more descriptive. But FWIW, I think the reason it's called "title text" is because that's the text that appears in the <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_global_title.asp title]</code> attribute of the HTML <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.asp <img>]</code> tag of the comic's image on the xkcd.com site. For example, at https://xkcd.com/2364/, the code for the comic image looks like this:
<pre>
<img src="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation.png"
title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."
alt="Parity Conservation"
srcset="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation_2x.png 2x">
</pre>
:::In there, you can see the title text as <code>title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."</code> See [[title text|here]] for more explanation about that, and some discussions about it [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous#Common mistake|here]]. – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
::: While the current layout suits the first purpose (ease of search), I would argue that having the "title text" come before in the page layout, and in a completely different section, makes it fail the second (accessibility). Often the contents of the title text are a continuation of the humour in the strip, so it's about as useful as having the explanation ahead of the transcript as far as accessibility is concerned. My suggestion on this matter is to either a) move the transcript to the top of the content, maybe within a collapse section or b) not claim it for accessibility.
::: As for the secondary topic, I've seen it called "Author Text" before, as it is text by the author and most people won't care what the element attribute is named. [[Special:Contributions/64.114.211.89|64.114.211.89]] 06:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

== Wikipedia links. ==

I think the links to Wikipedia should have symbols, so it's not confusing which ones lead to other comic pages.

== It's time to remove the HTTPS lock icon ==

Explainxkcd should do the same thing that browser makers have done: treat HTTPS as the modern standard, and mark HTTP as the deviation instead.

Here are appropriate replacement icons:
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(32_bit).png
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(4_bit).gif
- [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

== New page for Randall's regular column in the New York Times ==
Randall Munroe has been writing and illustrating a monthly science column in the New York Times. I suggest a page in this Wiki, indexing those columns. For some reason the New York Times itself does not provide such an index. If they ever do add one, we would still have a topic article here, similar to the one we have for the What If blog, that could link to their index. --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
------
=== New York Times column: Good Question ===

'''Good Question''' is a more-or-less monthly column written and illustrated by '''[[Randall|Randall Munroe]]''' in the '''[https://www.nytimes.com/section/science Science section of the New York Times]''', beginning in November 2019. The columns give serious answers to science questions, in Munroe's inimitable style.

The New York Times website ordinarily requires registration, and its content is always protected by copyright. Most particularly it is ''not'' under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License] the way [[xkcd]] is. The good news: anyone can register for a free digital subscription to the New York Times, with access to 'recent' Science articles among some others, but outside of that only five articles per month. See [https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/info/help/freesearch.html Free Articles].

Unlike for many of their other regular columnists, the New York Times does not provide a clickable link either on the byline '''Randall Munroe''' or on the column title '''Good Question'''. The following tables are intended to correct that omission.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''by'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/science/what-makes-a-red-sky-at-night-and-at-morning.html What Makes a Red Sky at Night (and at Morning)]
| Randall Munroe
| Aug. 13, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/science/randall-munroe-moon.html If I Touched the Moon, What Would It Feel Like?]
| Randall Munroe
| Nov. 12, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2019/12/10/science/earth-size-mass.html Is Earth Getting Bigger Over Time?]
| Randall Munroe
| Dec. 10, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/science/human-running-speed-quadruped.html How Fast Can a Human Run?]
| Randall Munroe
| Jan. 21, 2020 / Feb. 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/science/worst-odor-smell-thioacetone.html What’s the World’s Worst Smell?]
| Randall Munroe
| Feb. 17, 2020 / Feb. 26, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2020/03/10/science/question-randall-munroe-bobsled-gravity.html What if Galileo Had Dropped Bobsleds From the Tower of Pisa?]
| Randall Munroe
| March 10, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/science/pulsar-xkcd-munroe-stars.html How’s the View From a Spinning Star?]
| Randall Munroe
| April 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/science/traffic-barrier-rice-krispies.html What’s the Sweetest, Crispiest Way to Stay Safe in a Car Crash?]
| Randall Munroe
| May 11, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/science/randall-munroe-question-eggs.html Can You Boil an Egg Too Long?]
| Randall Munroe
| June 9, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/neutrinos-snowball-randall-munroe.html Could You Make a Snowball of Neutrinos?]
| Randall Munroe
| July 7, 2020
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''about'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! LINK BY LINK
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26link.html This Is Funny Only if You Know Unix]
| Noam Cohen
| May 26, 2008
|-
! BITS
| [https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/techs-favorite-cartoonist-enters-mainstream-publishing/ Tech’s Favorite Cartoonist Enters Mainstream Publishing]
| Noam Cohen
| March 14, 2014
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/randall-munroe-the-creator-of-xkcd-explains-complexity-through-absurdity.html He’s Glad You Asked]
| Kenneth Chang
| Nov. 3, 2014
|-
! BOOKS
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/books/randall-munroe-explains-it-all-for-us.html Randall Munroe Explains It All for Us]
| Alexandra Alter
| Nov. 23, 2015
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/randall-munroe-xkcd-science-textbook.html Randall Munroe, XKCD Creator, Goes Back to High School]
| Kenneth Chang
| March 21, 2016
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/18/science/document-Munroepages.html Randall Munroe of ‘XKCD’ Explains the Human Body, Elevators and the Saturn 5]
| (Actual pages from '''{{w|Thing_Explainer|Thing Explainer}}''')
| March 21, 2016
|}
------

: Looks goods to me, you should probably make that an article of its own, maybe [[New York Times: Good Question]]? --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 22:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

: {{notice|I went and added the page, here: [[New York Times: Good Question]] --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 02:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)}}

== Bring back the {{rw}} template! please ==

Can someone restore the <nowiki>{{rw}}</nowiki> template? I insist on its existence. I further assure that it will be of much use. It was deleted by an admin. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 06:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:nm, did it myself. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 04:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

== Link to high-resolution images? ==

The wiki includes the "standard" resolution images, but would it be worth adding a link to the higher-resolution image on each page? It appears that this could be automated in at least a strong majority of cases: if the standard image is ''xyzzy.png'', the hi-res one is ''xyzzy'''_2x'''.png'' . [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
:Please stop adding this to the explanations. This is not needed. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
::The high-resolution image was quite useful in parsing the "Amelia's Farm Fresh Cookies" comic. I'm not convinced that the hi-res images are commonly known. I've been reading xkcd for about 7 years and hadn't heard about them until I stumbled across a mention of them in one of the Discussions here. What is the harm in having a one-line ''link'' here? -- not, I emphasize, the actual image, which would take up a great deal of space. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
:::I didn't know about the high-resolution images either. While it might be a bit repetitive to add a full sentence to every comic's explanation, I agree that having ''some'' easy way to link to the hi-res image on xkcd.com could be handy. For example, maybe a "hi-res" or "2x" button before the "Next >" button above the comic in [[Template:comic]]? That's a bit extreme, but I added an example template, derived from the existing [[Template:comic]], to demonstrate how that could work:
:::* Template: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Template:comic 2x test]]
:::* Demo: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Sandbox#2x comic template test]]
:::With those changes to the template, for all comics as of [[1084]] the "2x" button would automatically appear. (No need to go back and change all comics.) This assumes the images hosted on explainxkcd generally have the same filename as on xkcd.com, but there are optional parameters to override the filename or omit the "2x" button altogether for specific exceptions. I'm not suggesting we actually go ahead and implement this; but if there was enough interest, an admin would be needed anyway, to make the changes within [[Template:comic]], which is currently protected. – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
::::FWIW, I like this. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::My proposal is that a bot should add it automatically to the description of each comic image when available so that it does not take up space anywhere and is easily accessible. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 13:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Proposal to replace the top section with this... ==

I have come up with a new design for the top section of all community portals...
It’s located here... https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Sandbox&oldid=199882 — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
<hr/>
{|-
|valign="top" width="80%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big>Proposals</big></big>

Ideas to improve the wiki's design and organization can be added here. {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=(+post)}}

|valign="top" xalign="right" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app package settings blue.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Technical]][[File:Crystal Clear teamwork.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination]][[File:Mop.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests]][[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous]]
|}

== I made a template for welcoming new users. ==

{{Welcome}}
<hr/>
Any ideas? Suggestions? Objections? — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
: this is now in at the top of the Main Page --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::Why? This looks like a template intended for (newly created) UserPages. And it replaces interesting data from the frontpage with something not useful for casual visitors (or even non-casual lurkers). I'd undo this change in an instant if I had authority to do so. ((The template looks good, to clarify, just obviously not intended to be in that location.)) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.154|141.101.76.154]] 01:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:::[[User: Jeff|Jeff]] is the owner of explainxkcd you dingus. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

== comic groups ==

i think we should have a tech problems list of comics ( as there are quite a few)
:We already have a category for it. [[:Category:Cueball_Computer_Problems]]. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Archiving interactive comics? ==

Has the possibility of archiving interactive comics been discussed? Of course, users can view them on the original website, but it’d be nice to have a working backup of sorts, especially considering some of the interactive comics haven’t aged too well in terms of compatibility or support (e.g. Umwelt displays a blank page for me.)

It probably wouldn’t be possible to do so directly from mediawiki, but I’d be happy to experiment with cloning a few of them on another server, or as simple PHP pages that could be embedded, if it would help. Most of the interactive comics appear to be implemented mostly in client side JS anyways, so replicating them shouldn’t be too bad.

[[User:Tague|Tague]] ([[User talk:Tague|talk]]) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

== Replace head shots of characters in the wiki with these new and high quality head shots! ==

https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/n2u28r/i_took_head_shots_of_the_reccuring_characters_and/

These are not only upscaled, but are all squares and have all the features of the characters. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
:I think you should do it (because higher quality = better) :] [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
::There seemed to be no objections, so I went ahead and did it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 12:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

== Cleaning up [[Special:WantedTemplates|Special: Wanted Templates]] ==

I decided to take a look at the list of wanted templates. Imagine my surprise when I see that a lot of the templates wanted were mis-capitalizations or misspellings of existing templates. I hereby request permission to create redirect pages for some of the most popular errors.
I intend to do five, wait a week, and do another five as to not spam the wiki. I will not begin for a week, at which point I will only proceed if nobody has said no OR a moderator has said yes. May I proceed? [[User talk:Quillathe Siannodel|{)|(}]][[User:Quillathe_Siannodel|Quill]][[Special:Contributions/Quillathe_Siannodel|{)|(}]] 11:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

== Knit Cap ==
Sometimes Knit cap has long hair, sometimes short. Is Knit Cap meant to be a male character that sometimes has long hair, or is Knit Cap sometimes female? I want to clear this up before I finish editing [[1350: Lorenz]]. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:Hm, in the 'Enemy Pikachu used theft' scene in [[1350: Lorenz]], Knit Cap's hair looks merely slightly unkempt. From this, I will assume that Knit Cap just sometimes has long hair and is always male. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::Ok, the official transcripts say that Knit Cap is 'A guy in a knit cap'. I will take that to mean that Knit Cap is definitely male.
:::(Sorry for necroposting) Knit cap is shown to represent Randall's wife in the "X years" series, I assume that they are thusly female. {{unsigned|B for brain|15:07, 29 March 2026}}

== We still need to complete some explanations like this one: ==

I think should change the banner shown at the top of every page to show a comic that is still incomplete, like Hoverboard or something. [[User:Sure|Sure]] ([[User talk:Sure|talk]]) 21:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

== Update MediaWiki ==
explainxkcd is running MediaWiki 1.30.0, which reached end-of-life in June 2019. There are likely security issues because of this, so please update MediaWiki to the latest version (or LTS) using the instructions here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 19:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
:It seems like the mysql is too outdated for the upgrade [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
::Upgrade MySQL then[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu|talk]]) 03:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to contact an admin for this? I have no clue. [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 03:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== Allow Users to Edit their own talk page if not auto confimed ==

I can edit this page, but I can't create my own talk page! [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

== Upgrade Icons ==

The icons look quite old fashion (the ones on the sidebar and the ones above the editing text area), could they be replaced? [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
:They probably could be, but changing icons the moment they're not absolutely cutting-edge just means using new icons that are as easily edged-out (as tastes change yet again), meanwhile annoying those who prefered the first set and rather wouldn't see a revolving door of ever-evolving aesthetics.
:If I had a vote, I'd say keep the simple glyphs we're used to. If any are not totally obvious (perhaps some would not be, without the text captions) consider revising, but I think you'll get less agreement on what new images to use than that which would advocate the retention of the current ones.
:Alternately, it would definitely be on-theme to find Randall-drawn illustrations to replace them all. But the constraints of adapting (say) any particular stick-figure-world depiction of randonmess to ''meaningfully'' replace the current Random Page icon (at the same scale!) might be less than optimal.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

== Make searchbar not case-sensitive ==

The way the search bar is currently set, it only suggests comic links when what is being typed is capitalized ("Assigning Numbers" rather than "assigning numbers" for instance). Would be nice if we could make it not case-sensitive :D [[User:Char Latte49|Wielder of the Staple Gun]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 02:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:Good idea. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== Do not allow ordinary users to edit redirects that are just numbers ==

This overrides the default page you're sent to when you check a comic; e.g. recently a vandal edited the page entitled "2614" so it overrode the actual page, [[2614: 2]] on the main page.
:The problem would be when creating a new page and the overrides are needed... [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== ExplainXKCD discord (or other platform)? ==

I'm just saying if we had instant messages, pings etc. there would be a lot faster reaction to vandals.
The community portal is hard to get attention from and comments are all very well and good but conversations on Discord could get very quick response, and people could request edits, organise page re-writing etc.
Idk if we can get "official" backing by anyone high up but we could make one anyways?
:The problem with platforms like Discord or others is that we can't guarantee that everyone has access to them; on the wiki, anyone can edit, while some people may not have access to discord or such. A possible solution would be having a sort of service built into the wiki, but not sure how that might be done. Besides, this is a wiki, not an xkcd chat site. This is a good idea, though. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
::Anyone can create a discord account like anyone can create an account on this wiki. You don't even need a dedicated client/app as it can run in browser. Just like the wiki. Just my two cents. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Some user may not wish anyone to be able to contact them outside this wiki. You do not need an acount to edit this wiki... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== So, I got a question about transcripts. ==

A lot of comics show links (e.g.: all the ones with a drawing of wikipedia on it), and the transcripts don't really have a standard. In the transcript, should it be an actual link or just blue text or what? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.52|162.158.79.52]] 15:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:I'd say that if the linked thing (presuming it's a real linkable target!) is linked in the Explanation, it doesn't need to be (re)linked in the ostensibly flat-and-descriptive Transcript.
:And I know that some Transcripts are hypertext formatted to emulate the thing they are transcribed from (whether bolded, enbiggened, sub-/superscripted and and/or given the hue) but maybe ''primarily'' the "<code>[:Text that describes the text]</code>" should be explaining the details, in case the screen-reader (or text-searching algorithm grepping the Transcript text for "green text" or "superscript" instances can't quite work it out from the various style-tags that can be applied to that effect in so many an various ways.
:But this is IMO, I don't know if there's a specific policy about it, but it is how I've seen it vaguely applied... Not everywhere quite so consistently, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
::We try to keep links and explanations out of the transcript. The link and the explanation goes in the explanation section above. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== Use 2X Images ==

Apparently xkcd.com provides double-sized versions of almost every comic if you add '''_2x''' to the end of the image name. For instance,

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches.png

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches_2x.png

Since we are in 2022 and computers can load high-resolution images just fine, and they are easier to read, I propose that this website should use the provided double-sized images. Really, I think Randall ought to be doing this himself as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.18.107|172.68.18.107]] 12:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

:While I agree with using the higher quality images which are default on xkcd.com for many people, there has been [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Link_to_high-resolution_images.3F discussion] about this issue already. At the moment, the consensus seems to be to continue using the 'standard' size to 'use less space,' and instead link to the higher quality image on the image page. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

::I think I may have mentioned it on that link (or similar), but often when the 2x image is used (or even an unwise too wide image/unbreakable-line-of-content) the explainxkcd site cannot sensibly handle it and it forces the default 'page width' of stuff into a zoomed out narrower column to the left (including the margin-line normally inset a dozen or so pixels in from the right) so that browser-window can display the whole of this wide element.
::While "saving space" does apply to server resources and viewer download bandwidth/quotas (e.g.[https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection.png 53kb] vs [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection_2x.png 109kb]) may seem insignificant, screen-space can be badly hit by this.
::The motherlode xkcd site has code behind it to (usually?) serve the right image for the right displays, but explainxkcd isn't currently equipped to do the same choose-and-provide (which would need ''both'' images uploaded to it and a revised {{template|comic}} implementation, once we work out the method it could use). And I've never seen any case where the 'low quality' comic is conversely too small and narrow to appreciate (though occasionally the larger one reveals minor drawing details that have been obscured by the downscaling), just when the _2x one makes everything ''else'' too small.
::...this may not apply to everyone's browser implementation, but it definitely happens, and consistently, on my usual Chrome and/or Firefox on Windows and/or Android platforms (according to which system I happen to be on at the time). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 21:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
:::ExplainXKCD actually does have the capability to do this. For example, see [[1079:_United_Shapes]]. It generates multiple images, automatically choosing one based on screen size (similar to how xkcd.com does it). The bot could use the `imagesize` parameter to keep the image within the page's width by using the 'standard' image size. This does add a button labeled "click to enlarge," but if that is annoying, the comic template can be modified to hide that button if specified.
:::Here is what it might look like:
:::{{cot}}
{{User:Theusaf/Template:comic_2x
| number = 2647
| date = July 18, 2022
| title = Capri Suns
| image = capri_suns_2x.png
| titletext = [As security is dragging me away] "Come on, at least I didn't make the mistake in the other direction!"
| imagesize = 315x317px
| noexpand = true
}}
{{cob}}
:::which is clearer than the original comic page and the same size. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 05:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::::As specificaly implemented above, I certainly see no immediate problem (need to check across machines/devices), but I suspect that part of the mechanism here is the "imagesize = 315x317px", which seems like it would need (albeit by the page-create bot, algorithm8cally) to be tailored to the 'input' image, not always in this ratio). I'm not technically conversant with the nature of your back-end scripting and doubtless it's all possible (scripts can do almost anything... once you know that they (may) need to do them and rewritten them to catch all the contingencies ;) ), but I don't know know if that's something you've accounted for (e.g. test with a three/four-panel wide comic, or the Earth Temperature Timeline or whatever, and see if it can facilitate them all nicely). Not to mention that if theusafBOT goes offline, the manual-add instructions (as used prior to your replacing the prior functioning bot, for which I thank you) also need this extra step of user involvement to be done, whereas usually the fallback manual method needed little thought in this direction (or indeed however much carbon or silicon there is in the 'brain' involved) except for exceptional circumstances or those rare prior slip-ups by Randall.
::::I'm just going through the first obvious issue (to me), didn't mean to concentrate so many words on just this before even checking everything else! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 09:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::Basically, on the backend, the bot will fetch both the small and the large images, and measure the size of the small image, which is what it will use for the <code>imagesize</code>. I have actually used this system in the past for this bot, but was told to revert it due to the "click comic to enlarge" text. As for if the bot goes offline, there is no problem with falling back to the small image, and if editors want to, I can also provide instructions for using the large image. I'm mostly just waiting to see what others think about this. Are there any other problems to consider? —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

== I'm making an App that collects web comics ==

My original idea was to use the rss feed present on xkcd, and other webcomic websites, but now im starting to wonder if there was a way to make a better service, that allowed users to maybe look at older comics, and explanations and such as well, and thats how i happened to come across explainxkcd.com. The RSS Feed for this website, would be pretty helpful, if it were like reddit's but apparently, the rss feed is only maintained for the home page. I was wondering if you guys provided that data through an API or something? Also are there wikis for other famous comics like this one? Any other suggestions and ideas for the app are welcome 🙌🙌.

== Comics edited after their publication ==

many more comics have been changed than are in Category:Comics edited after their publication ! please add them (i already have done two i remember off the top of my head) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.223|172.70.134.223]] 12:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

== What if 2 book page creation ==
What if 2 has come out, but I don't know which page is to be created. There is already a comic under the same name. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

== Default to 3 Section Headings for Each Explanation: Non-Obvious Info, Recap, and Background Trivia ==

This is a proposal that all new comic explanations should, by default, have 3 Sections:

'''I. Explanation of the Non-Obvious''' (an actual explanation of the non-obvious elements of the comic for the average reader who might not understand the references/joke/relevant science)

'''II. Full Recap'''

'''III. Background Trivia'''

Most of us can agree that Category I is where the value of this website shines.

But today, all 3 of these categories of explanation are typically merged together, making it hard to find the Category I nuggets of goodness.

If we make these 3 section headings the default on every comic explanation, then this default will helpfully nudge editors to put the juiciest stuff up top, and not to clutter that section up with fluff or trivia.

——

As an example, take the recent comic #2878 about Astronomer Happiness and Supernova distance.

The main thing a lay reader would want to know — the Category I information — is…

..That the shape of the graph is probably a clever reference to a Light Curve, a type of supernova graph

..why astronomers like it when a supernova is close, and what happens when it gets too close

Everything else in the (currently) very wordy explanation gets in the way of the lay reader finding out these two things. It’s a bunch of Category II and Category III info that makes it hard to tease out the Category I info. It’s not BAD information, but it’s sandpaper. It’s friction slowing down the average reader.

Obviously I could go in and edit this particular comic, and I often do this kind of edit, but I think this issue pops up for most explanations, so I think changing the standard default interface will help everyone put their contribution into the right section.

In sum, my proposal would elevate Category I info to the top of each explanation, so instead of full recaps, we get right into the explanation that is going to be most efficiently illuminating for the average, non-expert reader, answering the most common questions.

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:In general (if I get dibs on the edit, or think I can legitimately re-edit/rearrange), I do try to go for "hook, line, sinker" format (i.e. establish the basics, relate that to what the comic shows, move on to any relevent speculations/extrapolations), very like your setup. Though it is often ''much'' too complicated (multi-layered, cross-disciplinary, etc, so that maybe it has to be interwoven 'mini explanations' per tabulated item) so I'm not sure how easy it would be to enforce a strict structure. I think there's merit to the principle, though. Assuming we can all agree what each comic needs focus on (apply that problem to the following proposal too!), as I've occasionally inserted a sort of "first you need to know <subject>" into an established cold-start explanation ("you see <foo>" only for a later editor to consider it more an afterthought and shuffle it to later ("you see <foo>" ... "<foo> is part of <subject>"), or variations on such layouts. Especially as different people have different ideas as to what's obvious/can be keyword-wikilinked and what needs more waffle to properly enlighten readers.
:Also, prosaic variation is a good thing. Too formulaic and it could be (whilst accurate) considered too robotic, so some leaway should really always be allowed as we collectively bash together a community interpretation and elaboration. Within communal guidelines, clearly. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.203|172.69.194.203]] 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== FAQ Style Editing should be the norm ==

Simply, we should experiment with more FAQ-style explanations.

We think of the top questions that the average reader might have about a comic, and we use those as bolded headers to explain the most curious/confusing/subtle/sciency parts of the comic.

The structure would be this (using a recent comic as an example)…

'''Q: Why did Randall use this shape of graph?'''
A: It’s likely a clever reference to a Light Curve, a similarly shaped graph in the study of supernovae that…

'''Q: Why do astronomers prefer it when supernovae are closer?'''
A: It makes it easier to glean information because…

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== sidebar revamp ==
I think that the sidebar looks plain and it should have a new design. It could be voted on by users [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 02:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:In leiu of you telling us what you think would be better, my starting vote is that I'm perfectly happy with that 'plain'. If it has the links I might need, why does it need a reskin? Or, worse, a functional revamp which probably removes the easy to use bits I was using already.
:...could you do a mock-up screenshot (or render equivalents directly in markup) of before/after side by side, at least? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.120|172.69.194.120]] 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My biggest problem is it doesn’t scroll down with you which can be a big pain [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
:Don't know about anyone else, but (when not on a desktop) I read this on a tablet, in landscape, with the effective window quite short (ratio of 1:2 with width, approaching 1:3.5 with already narrowed onscreen keyboard popped up) and if I'm scrolled to the top I see nothing beyond Browse Comics.
:If we assume separate scroll-control on the sidebar, setting Main Page at the top of browser pane gives What Links Here at the bottom. Now, I rarely use the next three links (or at least reach those pages using them), and separate scrolling wouldn't stop me even seeing the even lower Ad bit (but it ''would'' defeat the entire purpose of the Ad, in that position, whether or not I bother to notice it these days).
:So whatever missing about you propose, I'm betting it would impact me. Perhaps not negatively, but I've seen enough awful assumptions about my screen-area in the name of scroll-free design. Including the "give us permission (or not) to give you cookies" popovers where it appears the actual buttons to confirm (or deny, or go somewhere to review and customise, if they have that option) are beyond the bottom of my screen. I can temporarily rotate the screen, of course, but often I just back out and don't bother in those cases. I wouldn't be reticent to rotate this site, on occasion, but ''I'd really rather not have to'', if I can be so selfish and stick-in-the-mud, because websites just are not good to use (even temporarily) in narrow-portait mode. (What's worse is the websites that detect I'm on a mobile platform and redesign styles/placements on-the-fly to 'fit portrait view', assuming a vertical smartphone, ''regardless'' of my actual viewport orientation, etc.)
:So, please, a hard no from me. Notwithstanding that just as solidly "always browse in portrait" people might be overjoyed at changes that would give ''them'' a better site design. But that's a tricky circle to square (or letterbox!), and not what you were suggesting anyway (now we know what it is). I just want to plea that any changes be made with a very good idea of all the knock-on effects of 'improving' certain edge-cases, especially when it comes to yet other edge-cases. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.23|172.70.85.23]] 10:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
==New Logo and Banner Proposals==
:I have new logo and banner proposals for this site.
:They're made on Scratch, an all-ages block-based programming language, and are in the style of Right Click.
:Here they are!
:Logo proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png
:Banner proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banner_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.37|01:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)}}
::I can't see the xkcdicity of the logo, really. The banner is certainly flavourful in the right way (does it scale down well? ...is that what your use of Scratch is for, as opposed to standard static Photoshop/GIMP image editing?), but not sure it'll work better for the current top-left-of-page xkcd (with three xkcd figurses idling away, sat on the letters).
::Decent concept art for something else related, certainly. I could believe it was a Randall's-own interactive comic front-end of some kind (which would make sense of the "play button" that is the "►"-bit). Given that it's now in a programming system already, have you tried making a drag'n'click game of the idea of linking/looping the blue-trail, and animating the hanging-on characters? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.29|172.70.90.29]] 13:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::It's an arrow, not a play button. Get it right. {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.72|01:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)}}
::::Hold your horses... I was just trying to find a good reason for the whatever-it-is triangle to be there (gave the example of a 'play' button in my speculated usefulness of it). And it isn't really obviously any more of an arrow (c.f. "→"), either. I like your(?) banner's use of xkcd-figures, just not sure where the logo exhibits any form of being xkcd-related, except by the literal reading of it.
::::Perhaps if it were "xkcd font" (i.e. artfully composited from actual samples of Randall's ALLCAPS comic-writing) then it wouldn't matter so much, but I just wouldn't say it was any more on-brand than the current logo/etc. This being intended as constructive criticism, I hope you understand. And there's more opinions than mine, so maybe I've indeed just missed some point that ''everyone else'' (especially named-users) have already realised. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.5|172.70.86.5]] 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

== Regarding precision in the Unexplained popup ==

Would it be possible to add an extra decimal point for the sake of precision? Currently, it shows that 0% of comics are unexplained, which is (as of 13:21 UTC on March 27, 2024) incorrect. It's a small thing, but it's rather annoying. {{unsigned ip|162.158.158.233|13:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)}}
:With the current 2911 comics (give or take #404), 0.1% would be slightly under 3 comics. You'd need at least three before 0.1% appeared instead of the equally unuseful 0.0%.
:I'm of the "at least give everyone a week before you unilaterally declare it 'done'..." camp, so right now ''just'' the latest M/W/F comic incomplete would hover at a token 0.1%.
:(Actually, from two (0.06...% rounded up) to 4 (0.13...% rounded down. The good news is that it'll be almost seven years until two-rounded-up is insufficient, but also up to six-rounded-down is now "0.1%", if I've not goofed the carries/etc.)
:If going to the trouble of editing it to 1DP, make it 2DP with ''exactly'' the same editing effort..?
<blockquote>
<center>
''Welcome to the '''explain [[xkcd]]''' wiki!'' 
We have an explanation for all [[:Category:All comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:All comics|R}}-1}}''' xkcd comics]],

and only {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}}
({{#expr: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} / {{LATESTCOMIC}} * 100 round 2}}%) [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|are incomplete]]. Help us finish them!
</center>
</blockquote>
:(As of time of posting, the above says "only 2 (0.07%)". From 0.0687049...% rounded up to 2DP.)
:Though given that we're only going to go into the future,{{Citation needed}} I suggest we can state the flat-out number. It's not now really going to be as scarily huge as it might have been, as the actual percentage becomes generally less significant.
:And, for niceness, give it a grammatically/factually agreeable form:
<blockquote>
;General form:
:<code><nowiki>... and {{#ifeq:  | 0 | no |  }} comic{{#ifeq:  | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq:  | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...</nowiki></code>
;Zero cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 0 | 0 | no |  }} comic{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;One case (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 1 | 0 | no | 1 }} comic{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Multiple cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 42 | 0 | no | 42 }} comic{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Current cases (dynamic):
:... and {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 0 | none | {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} }} comic{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
</blockquote>
:...easy to replicate to get "Help us finish them!" to change (upon a zero-test truth) to "But they all might be improvable!". Or change the :Cat:Link to not even be a link when zero, with alternate phrasing dodged over to in order to avoid "no comics are incomplete" in other ways.
:I wrote the above for minimal nesting of overlapping conditions. You might prefer just to go with <code><nowiki>{{#ifeq: <count> | 0 | <whole "zero cases" version> | {{#ifeq: <count> | 1 | <whole "single case" version> | <whole "plurality of cases" version> }} }}</nowiki></code> - both approaches involve repetitions, but maybe this other one can be given a ''degree'' of wikimarkup-readability within each case, to take pity on future editors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.166|172.70.160.166]] 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

== Hear me out: What If? discussion page. ==

That's it. That's my idea. Go crazy, everyone. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. I would like a page on each What If entry. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::I've thought about this, over the years. Having 'a page' (rather than the summary table, in the [[what if? (blog)|overview page]], etc) does sound more completist than what we currently have but I then tend to hit the main ontological problem...
::In the What-Ifs, Randall takes a 'simple' question and then ''explains'' the consequences. At length. A 'comic page' structure (starting with how we'd deal with the multiple midpoint images, so we would stray far from using the {{template|comic}} introduction) that followed the header(image,etc)/explanation/transcript/(trivia)/included-comments format would be silly and have many parts inappropriate. Remove the Transcript, for starters. ''Or'' need a mini-Transcript for each 'illustrative' image. (e.g. ":[Black Hat:] What if we tried more power?", several times.)
::Is there an actual need to ''explain Randall's explanation..''? Because that's the only thing 'we' can do. Which is rather silly, and seems like it would take a small (entertainingly rambling) essay and expand it into a large (pedantically rambling) one.
::Or else we just straight-copy the What-If over here as a 'backup'-blag? Allowable, but not exactly a USP, there'll be Internet Archive and personal copies, should things go bad at Randall's end. Not really a noble-cause.
::My suggestion, as to how to cover the remaining "explanation gap" and provide a useful 'service' that's worthwhile maintaining, is ''maybe'' two What If? (Blag) sub-pages:
::#A place to collate all inter-text images (and hover-/title-texts), and Transcript them, for easy searching.
::#*e.g. when you know you want to refer to the "bomb to the eyeball" one (internally or for something external) but think you might not realise where you need to go to (the supernova neutrinos one!) just by scrolling a bare comic list.
::#*Or you'd like to see, at a glance, how many different places the Black Hat Try More Power running joke occurs.
::#*Even if you don't want to open the page itself (160+ 'comics' with say 5 images each, is an 800ish-image page, less rationalising 'repeats' to a single entry), it should at least give you a search result for "dry waterfall" that points you in the direction of the "Niagra Straw" one (and maybe others?).
::#*I could see these being brief Image/Titletext/Transcript/(optional explanatory context), but not enough material to make them separate comic-style-pages in their own right, right?
::#Something of the same 'collation page mechanism' for all those superscript-popup-'footnote' bits. Though I admit I'm not entirely sure for what purpose except that it just ''seems'' like a good "collection page" to maintain. Perhaps to offer updated onward-links if any of the originals suffer link-rot? (But then, that fate can occur to all non-popupped links, so maybe I've chosen the wrong thing to highlight.)
::...the question is, what do you want from it. Bear in mind that if you can creae pages here then you can set up what ''you'' think you'd like to see (e.g. for What-If#1, for starters) then get the community to assess it. Do it as a sub-page to your Userspace, maybe, as proof-of-concept.
::Just because it's not been seen as necessary so far, doesn't mean it's not necessary. I've thought about it a lot (not thst I'm in a position to inplement anything), but I've only decided that I don't see a need for a straight copy (others' views may differ on that) and not enough reason to pester for ''my'' 'ideas' to be fulfilled. But I aint 'in charge' here, and happily so. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.100|172.69.194.100]] 11:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::You make a fair point. He did already explain in great detail what would happen if [x] scenario happened. It just seems like it would be nice to have a page exclusively for discussing all the ''What If'' articles. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::::People just need to make a draft or two and see what happens. Be sure to link a draft here if one is created, I would like to help on it. "I want to learn more and explore this scenario further" is a valid feeling to have. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

== Randall-ify the Captcha ==

Let's have some fun: Is it feasible to replace the Captcha with something "xkcd-ish" like "click on Randall's work" with a mix of XKCD stuff and generic pictures. If not, how about a replacing it with a quiz like "which of the following IS [or IS NOT] xkcd character" with one obvious correct answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.75|172.68.26.75]] 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:are YOU able to create a CAPTCHA from scratch? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::Choose any images that contain user-made CAPTCHAs from the following selection. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::We could also make captchas based on most of [[:Category:CAPTCHA|these]]. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 02:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

== Incomplete Tag Vote ==

I think each comic's discussion page should have a section to vote on whether the explanation is complete or not. How long do you think the voting period should be?[[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Rather than a voting period, I think it would be ideal if people could "vote" on the completeness of an article at any time. As I go through all the old pages, I come across lots of pages that feel a little bit incomplete. It would be nice if we had a measurement of completion that wasn't binary. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 10:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Feel free to add the incomplete tag again. But don't forget to mention WHY (either in the tag or the discussion or both) you think it's incomplete. :) The tag is mainly there so you can have a list of "incomplete" comics. A comic is either on that list or it isn't. This is pretty much binary. As for voting: If I think an explanation is complete and it bothers me that it's flagged as not I generally juts make a comment in the discussion asking if someone has still something to add or actually knows WHY it's still incomplete. If there's no response after a few days I delete the tag. There's no need to make a voting out of this. And if somone strongly disagrees to you there's always the "Undo"-link ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Sometimes I just feel "this could use more detail," without specifically knowing what the detail would look like. This can be a problem when it's about explaining complicated science: the "completion" of a description of quantum mechanics that is readable by a novice, is very subjective. I am realizing the problem with the persistent voting idea tho: many people will vote something as "incomplete" but wouldn't come back to check on it later. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 12:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm more in the "less is more" camp. Most of my recent contributions to this wiki were deleting parts of bloated explanations: You don't need to explain quantum mechanics unless it's absolutely crucial for understanding the respective comic. Of course, if you are an expert in any given field, [[2501|it's hard to tell]] whether or not the current explanation is sufficient for a layperson and most contributors tend to write "too much". Which is totally fine. People like me take care of the "too much". ;) So, if you are an expert in quantum mechanics ignore "completed" comics about quantum mechanics. Surely you could contribute a lot to it but chances are high that most of it is unnecessary for the comic. Instead ask yourself if you need more information to understand that comic about biology. And if you do, add an incomplete and ask for that information ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:I've been here a long time, effectively back to when there were ''missing'' explanations (other than the "too new to have the barebones put in" ones, these days only seen when the current BOT is tardy or offline for some reason), and I've seen the Incomplete template change from the useful 'infill marker' to become a regular joke-tag of a similar nature to the Citation Needed. Yes, I agree that both of these (and the Because You're Dumb" tag) are perhaps a bit confusing for new users (like the one who badly edited out a link, just now, apparently thinking it was spam, because of the way it mentioned viagra), but I have grown to see them as community in-jokes (of various degrees of subtlety) that many people seem to appreciate under their current incarnations.
:We've recently removed the Main Page's more literal "there are # incomplete articles" announcement, which leaves the purpose of ''more accurately'' using the Incomplete tag a little less important. Apart from letting us dive into the (purported) list of Incomplete Explanations, one of the main ''serious'' purposes of the Incomplete tag is removed, leaving the now consistently employed purpose of doing a "Created by a THING OTHER THAN THE BOT" joke much more prominent.
:Really, all articles are potentially incomplete, still. Some more than others. Something big, like Hoverboard or Gravity, might truly have easter-eggs or subtle details as yet not properly commented upon, but there have been edits to ''double-digit'' comics recently which might be considered improvements. As such, there are really only two 'sensible' direct courses of action:
:#Completely remove the Incomplete tag, from use, as all pages are only ever as complete as the eye of any particular beholder, and the more recent pages are ''obviously'' incomplete by their being barely 15 minutes (or a day, or ''maybe'' a week) old. Or being so huge (or Time-like!) that they clearly still haven't been 'completely' documented. Maybe the BOT can add a Created By The Bot tag that gets wiped out by the first serious attempt at human editing, but if we wish to lose this part of our site culture so readily then why ever have it at all? A wikivote system is not really that accurate under these circumstances, for a number of reasons that I needn't explain, so go straight to assuming that any such 'vote' would pass, right from the off...
:#Embrace it for its THING OTHER THAN A BOT usage, alone. Don't be so eager to remove them just because you have no personal changes you'd wish to see. (Votes or not, there could always be another editor along in a minute who has, unlike the rest of you, picked up on an obscure visual pun rendered in what turns out to be hieroglyphs, or similar.) If we have to cull them (not a given!), then let it be an unstated rule (or a stated one?) that if there are more than (e.g.) half a dozen then the 'least amusing' may be removed by the first editor who wishes to express a critical opinion. Just the one at a time. No reinstating, no resurrection, no adding to old articles that never ever had a 'joke Incomplete' before, no entirely new joke (but you can refine what's there, to a degree), just a rolling (and not necessarily consecutive!) set of the "finest natjve explainxkcd wit". Or at least the least objectionable surviving examples of same.
:As a practical guide, the "reason why you think it is Incomplete element" could be entirely served by in-line tags (the "What?" and "Why?" and "Date?" things you might see elsewhere). Perhaps we could even do ''both'' things by instead having a "Complete" tag ''explicitly'' for BOT-REPLACEMENT-type tomfoolery (and tongue-in-cheekness about Completion, as we might currently be about Incometeness) from the off. That might confuse the newbods, of course. At least until it doesn't, and then they're not newbods anymore...
:The companion tag, for Incomplete Transcript, is presumably going to serve as it currently does (as a still serious hint as to actual Incompleteness), albeit that I've noticed a trend for the first editor of a brand new published comic to (possibly ''after'' doing the BOT-replacement joke, or after the editor who did ''only'' that) go straight in and enTranscript it (to varying degrees of accuracy and completion), whether or not they also then remove that specific tag-template at the same time. It seems that some people are more comfortable at providing a ''Transcript''ion-service than they are at establishing even the seed of an Explanation. (Or they only have enough time to do the latter, to the level of detail they wish to achieve in the moment open to them.)
:This is, of course, a cultural issue. All the above (from me) is just my own perception of practical aspects, notwithstanding those opinions already expressed before that (and elsewhere). I don't speak for everyone. And, as a perpetual IP, technically I should say that I don't speak for ''anyone'', either... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.140|172.70.160.140]] 14:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

::I like the idea of removing the Incomplete tag. What do you think? [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::I greatly approve of a <nowiki>{{what}}</nowiki> tag, as a Wikipedian that's actually really funny. I would want to keep the Incomplete tag, as I think it has purpose, even if it no longer represents a goal to achieve. I think this website will never reach 100.00% completeness and that is good, actually. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 14:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::Okay. If someone wants to they can just ignore the incomplete tags. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

== "As of <now>"... ==

What would be rather useful is an <code><nowiki>{{As of now}}</nowiki></code> template (or similar wording, and perhaps an "as of now"-cased alternative for use mid-sentence). There are many articles that will have words along the lines of "this has not yet happened, as of August 2024" or "this situation is continuing, as of August 2024". Every now and then, someone will come across one of these with an older date (perhaps only just out of date, perhaps years old) and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1858:_4th_of_July&curid=20285&diff=348082&oldid=315524 edit it accordingly]. You could also seek them all out, deliberately, with a bit of effort in the search-bar.

(Note that "as of" does not ''always'' need updating, there are non-dated examples such as in [[1074: Moon Landing#Trivia]], static transcript versions, like [[1071: Exoplanets#Transcript]] and other instances where the text "as of", with or without a date, really does not need to be changed... but sometimes is anyway by a well-meaning passer-by.)

Sometimes, this can be done along with another useful edit/update/revision that is spotted, or is just one of the revisions that some other need for change conveniently allows. But it seems a bit vague to rely upon occasional attention. Instead the template will implement something like "<code><nowiki>As of {{Monthyear}}</nowiki></code>" (here having to use <code><nowiki>{{#time:F Y}}</nowiki></code>, ..."As of {{#time:F Y}}"...), though there's the possibility that a parameter-mediated switch can let it alternatively become a to-the-day-level format option (at which point you could even implement/calcuate something like {{template|Yesterday}} would be) or just to the year-level. (Or add {{template|As of this year}}, {{template|As of this month}} and {{template|As of this day}} separately.)

This would negate the need to ''just'' poke and prod any article that happened to 'need' updating every month (or year, or possible day). And to deal with the possibility that some of these cases might actually need to be edited because "as of" does ''not'' now apply, include within it a {{:Category:As of}} membership, letting anyone who is interested keep an eye on these aggregated 'As of's, ready to jump in there and change it to some straight up "Up until <fixed date>" equivalent should any one of them actually no longer apply.

...obviously, I can't even begin to create the template page required, but I'd be happy to work on the exact wikimedia code required if anyone thinks it needs anything but the most basic transcluded formatting and doesn't know how. Open to discussion, and I'll tag on more if I happen to see that discussion developing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 18:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:As an addendum/change to my above suggestion, considering a simpler {{template|as of}} (and {{template|As of}}) which does ''no'' automagical continuous updating (just gives the "as of" literal on its own), but still guarantees "Category:As of" membership, so that it doesn't actively give wrong (new) date+circumstance relationships in the likes of [[1047: Approximations]]. In that, the several mentions of populations can safely stay as old years until someone rewrites the proposed value and assessment as well, but it still could be a task to pursue every new year after checking the Cat for likely comics needing a quick check'n'edit.

== “Grammar Bot” ==
I’m working on a python based bot written with the Pywiki library that aims to use the replace.py scripts to fix simple grammatical mistakes, e.g. correcting Citation needed placements, cleaning up extra spaces, etc. I will be posting the code in a few weeks after I finish it (I’m a bit busy at the moment with school and orchestra) so the entire community can view it. Any thoughts on the idea? Thanks. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:First thoughts are that there are going to be so many exceptions. I definitely agree with the idea of {{template|Citation needed}}s being made consistent (if only it weren't sometimes complicated{{Citation needed}}), as well as that of mysterious extra spaces. But that's not really grammatical. Punctuation, in the first case. I fear a full (or even fragmentary) grammar-checker is going to be complicated and give many false positives.
:At least at first, perhaps have it ''report'' what it thinks it has found. You may discover definite times that it isn't necessary and it would indeed create new errors.
:At the very least, run it with two checklists: One to do an automatic replace.py and one to just report. Start with the first list empty. Introduce potential ones to the latter, review all the reports carefully, ''then'' move any sensible-looking ones to former.
:And have it not fighting other bots (particularly theusafBOT), perhaps selected users (e.g. the likes of Kynde, and of course yourself) or indeed itself (if it makes a change that might inadvertently trigger another 'check') by excluding such changes for a recheck/rechange. Keep a record of what it changed, so that if anybody reverts/recorrects something that seems to have gone wrong it doesn't force it 'wrong' again. At the simplest, give a whole page a decent time-out and/or number of subsequent limits before it ''considers'' a new change. Implement from the start the option of a 'whitelist' (of pages it can ignore) or 'blacklist' (of rules it shouldn't apply, or at least actively apply, to a given page), so you can quickly manually add a throttle-down by simple config-file rather than have to add in a code-kludge when something obviously (in hindsight!) needs correcting about the way it works. And also maybe throttle it to have no more than one bot-edit per hour (while starting from scratch) to not swamp the system and give the rest of us time to assess any errors it has made (and its successes!) - you can unstick that throttle later, when you consider it tested with all its backlog of microcorrections.
:...there are a few other guidelines I would suggest, but the cautiousness already present in the above approaches might mean that they are left as not so important. Just consider what ''could'' go wrong before unleashing it on our world.
:And all power to your elbow, it is of course something we all might have considered (I know I have... not that I have the login for it, but what really stopped me was knowing how badly I could mess it up by getting just one detail wrong if I tried it).
:Among changes/alerts I would have it make would be cases of {{template|cn}}, {{template|citation needed}}, etc, instead of the 'main' template. Plus []-links to either wikipedia pages (most of them should be {{template|w}}-templated) or explainxkcd.com pages (most of them should be [[]]ed), although there are even then some exceptions. It'd also be nice if it can identify all Talk (and Community Portal) contributions that were not signed (more complex, as some may be after the fact, or have been after several years and further editings). I know how I'd do all this, or think I do (only upon starting to do it can I be sure I've actually theorised it correctly!), but I mention this mostly to point out how ''you'' might want to cautiously implement ''your'' ideas. HTH. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.15|172.70.86.15]] 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::you have made plenty of wonderful points that I clearly have not thought about-quite the critical oversight on my part. Is anyone interested in collaborating? I don’t think that my skills are good enough to satisfy all of those points. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 01:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::hello? Anybody? Please help… [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I believe this would be a great idea and also an incredibly complicated feat. Randall is no stranger to using weird punctuation in comics or misspelled words. I think it would be neat if it weren't automated and just reported errors it found so we could manually fix them, which would make its development much easier, but at that point it's very similar to a series of search queries for misspelled words, which we can already do. I have no coding skills so I'm not going to be of help. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
;Update
I have found a solution to fix most grammatical mistakes, I just need to make sure that it doesn’t correct character names like “Cueball”, not edit war with other bots, come up with a system to log the edits it makes so that it doesn’t revert again, and fix Citation needed templates. I already know how to make sure that it asks me before editing, so I want to create an account to test it out. Does anybody have ideas on what to name the bot? I don’t want to call it 42.book.addictBOT, since the username would be a bit clunky. ToriBOT could work, but I’m also open to any other names. Feel free to reply to this or reply to me on my talk page! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 20:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== "dark mode" ==
add dark mode [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:See [[User:Certified nqh/common.css]] or copy/paste my old [[User:42.book.addict/common.css|common.css]] page history into your common.css page: -42.book.addict [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.208|172.69.134.208]] 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::ha, thx tori, nqh's common.css works like a charm :) [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== reddit ==
Add reddit- Anonymous {{unsigned ip|172.71.214.80|08:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)}}
:You probably need to explain what you mean by that. Add reddit discussions to here? Add this site to reddit? Add some simple link to one from the other? Something else? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 13:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::>Add some simple link to one from the other?
::I have no idea what they meant either, but I hadn't thought of this! I could see the addition of a simple link to the comic template, like "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/{{PAGETITLE}" or "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/search/?q={{PAGETITLE}"
::I don't partecipate much in the r/xkcd subreddit, so i'm not sure if they have structured post titles or even if they posted all the comics, or if it's automated, but I think this could be cool! Some people will likely come from Reddit, so it would be a straightforward way for them to go back. Thoughts? {{unsigned|FaviFake|16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}

== viewer ==
i propose to add random page to comic viewer {{unsigned ip|172.71.150.14|00:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)}}
:There's already a "Random Page" link.
:If you mean (it's ambiguous!) a "Random Comic Page" link, then I'm not sure it's needed. There are so many "Comic pages" that it's a fairly good chance that you'll land on one of them for any given click, much more chance within two clicks. The likelihood of not getting a comic within ''three'' clicks will be tiny. Another way to do it is to just use the xkcd.com "Random" button, then (whichever comic you land on, which will be any but [[404]]), change the "xkcd.com" bit of the URL to "expxkcd.com" and... you end up here.
:If none of that really does what you want (especially if you mean something completely different from what I read it as), some more explanation would probably be appreciated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 01:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:If you want to make sure to land on all comics, you can go to "Special pages" on the sidebar, scroll down to "Random page in category", and enter "All comics". As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a way to automate this, so you have to keep inputting it manually. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 06:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::I think they meant a button on the {{tl|comic}} template. Would it be technically possible to make it such that it works exacly like the one on the official site? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::It ''should'' be a matter of using [[Special:RandomInCategory/All Comics]], I think, but doesn't seem to work when I try that exact attempt. Perhaps mediawiki or the mediawiki extension is not updated enough, or else I'm getting my wikisyntax slightly wrong.
:::Functionally, though, where the website has its Random button, we have our "go to the xkcd.com original", so more thought is needed before we just "add a button". If we do, we want it where the 'mothership' website does, but we still ought to have our details-and-link-to-original given, and I like it as a (faux) button.
::: Perhaps the {{template|comic}}, where it currently has header 'buttons':
[|<<] [Prev] [#9876 (Grune 32, 2525)] [Next] [>>|]
::: Needs to be changed to maybe:
[ #9876 (Grune 32, 2525) ]
[|<<] [Prev] [Random] [Next] [>>|]
:::...or equivalent. Haven't checked, but if it's a one-line table, can be easily made into a two-line one with colspan=3 (or 5?) in the right bit. If it's just centred, then it should come out Ok, in a simple way. But I'm not too keen on that change, really, and you'd need to actually have the Random->Comic link working first, ''anyway''. So I'm giving you my opinions and (slightly lacking) knowledge, in case that can at least make for the better outcome than either nothing (though not sure that's bad!) or some half-hearted ideas from elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.116|172.70.86.116]] 21:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::: Unless someone can figure out the requests made by the random in category, a workaround could be to use a (pseudo)random number generator (mediawiki has a [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Random_number template] on their website) to get a random number in the range of 1 - {{template|LATESTCOMIC}} and put in a link to that comic number using <nowiki>[[number]]</nowiki>.
:::: Note: There already is a "Random" template, but it was just using random page and was blanked by the person who made it [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 03:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Done|Done!!!}}  I tried that wikimedia templaete but couldn't figure out how to make it work. I did it using Special:Random, hoping there aren't too many non-comic pages. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::thanks! (i hav an account now) [[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 22:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No problem! There's also a special custom-designed navbar for the original comics: try clicking the "|<" button! (It's not complete yet, but i'm slowly finishing it!) --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

== Contentious Topics Template ==

I propose that we create a unified template to slap on contentious and possibly controversial comics, with a warning similar to the one I (and a couple other people added on) wrote in [[3073: Tariffs]]. Now, since I don’t know how to create a template and don’t understand how they work, this is my request for help. If you are available to help write it or have any tips for me, please contact me either in this thread or on my [[User talk:42.book.addict|talk page]]. Thanks! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:Hey, I just wanted to ask why you think a new template is needed. {{tl|notice2}} and {{tl|notice}} seem pretty solid. How would a new template differ from them? Btw, I switched the template in [[Talk:3073: Tariffs]] from {{tl|notice}} to {{tl|notice2}} so it's more like a warning, feel free to revert it if you prefer {{tl|notice}}. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::I read the idea (which I'm not too enamoured with, but wouldn't argue against either) as being to create a <code><nowiki>{{contentious}}</nowiki></code>-like template in its own right that (perhaps by using {{template|notice2}} within it) had a standard "This comic, and its explanation, covers a particularly contentious subject. Take even more care than usual when adding to or editing this Explanation/Talk Page" (or similar) text with it.
::It would probably also have the ability to add further (or alternate) info, by standard template parameters, in case you want to personalise it to the ''exact''nature of the contention.
::But, my reasons why I didn't volunteer my ideas immediately are:
::*It paints targets. Anybody who wants to can look at all "pages using the Contentious template" and then troll-bomb them ''specifically''
::*Looking at the Tariffs-comic warning, that's ''huge'', and catering for that with a "standard text + additional notes" would be awkward... if you really believe it should be so huge in the first place,
::*Just by being so obviously available, there'd be creep. "Hey, this comic talks disparagingly about Newton's belief in alchemy... Surely that needs a warning too!", or start off with "Well, nobody's warning about our attitude to the US Senate in this comic, so I can be disparaging" which then practically forces another contentious-tagging (''possibly'' useful, but maybe in making a bolt for the barn door only ''after'' the horse has already made its own bolt through it) as it gets toned-down/-back again.
::And, though I also imagined the Tariff comic ''would'' get some push-back (there was some minor bits, but we seem to have kept it mature enough, IMO), it seems to be quiet. Can't say for sure it would have been without the warning it now has, but it survived ok before that was added. Hence why I'm ''meh'' about the very proposal. Hard cases make hard laws, and hard situations may prompt hard solutions. But I'm dubious about the actual case for the need. (As you say, we have 'freeform' notice+notice2, and I haven't seen proof even that was necessary as it was used.)
::But it would be trivial to implement, give or take some fine-tuning. I'll say that as a positive for the idea. Even if we never really use it as much as we could. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.83|162.158.216.83]] 20:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Maybe it's a good thing that we have to craft one for each comic we want to tag; this makes sure only actually contentious comics get tagged. An upside to having a specific template is that we wouldn't need to type <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> every time, to avoid it displaying on the transcluded talk page.--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::mm. all of these are good points. now that i think about it, copy-pasting old warnings and tweaking them as needed is probably better than creating a new template. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

==Proposal for template page==
I was thinking that making a template page with instructions about what should and should not be included in which sections would make it easier for new editors to help. I have no idea how I would do this, though.[[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 11:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Which particular template? Many templates ''do'' contain instructions (from basic to rather thorough), and some common ones are also gone into in the FAQ page. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 20:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

== The newest stuff goes at top ==

I’ve been thinking the newest comments should go at top and replies are under the chose comment with a colon or more. Because every time someone makes a comment but not replying to you, you still get a message. So you only get notifications when someone replies to you. And the always get notifications not related to you is kind of annoying. [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:(Ah, so you found it, before I even wrote my directions down on how to get here.)
:Not sure this helps.
:Firstly: Top-posting is <s>the work of the Devil... burn it! Burn it all!</s> very hard to read.
::A: Because it's in totally the wrong order.
::Q: Why is Top Posting bad?
:(Yes, I know you want top-posting ''threads'' but retain bottom-posting ''thread replies'', but can you even imagine the chaos involved with people not properly realising what's top- and what's bottom-posted. Or inter-posted into an existing hierarchy? Not with this 'flatfile' structure, anyway.)
:Secondly: Does this count for headers (like <code>== The newest stuff goes at top ==</code>)? For 'no-colon' starter comments under a Discussion header? For both?
:Thirdly: what are we doing with all the past ''pages and pages'' of things that are (more or less..) consistently chronological and bottom-posted? To make new additions work, someone (and probably ''before'' the first commentator who wants to add a brand new one-line witicism to the top of any multi-year-idle page) has to go into every Discussion page (and more?) to reshuffle it all by whatever Top(ish)-Post Criteria are adopted.
:Fourthly: It wouldn't even change how frequently you get notifications. (Actually, it might make it worse, as inveterate bottom-posters have to be 'corrected' by the followers of the 'new rule', as well as for any actually idle pages that get redone as part of the "thirdly" point.) But I don't think Notifications are clever enough to imagine that a new section ''above'' what you previously wrote doesn't possibly interest your registered "watch and notify" intent upon any given page.
:I have a Fifthly and Sixthly, too, but I assume I've made my general opinion quite clear. (And I noted that this is not the only Community Portal edit you made, just before arriving here. Will check the other in a moment.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.142|172.68.229.142]] 06:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::Never mind. I don’t even need to read the whole thing to know it is complicated. To many words {{unsigned|Aprilfoolsupdate|07:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::Short version: It's complicated, confusing and troublesome to change to. And won't even solve your problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.197|172.70.160.197]] 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree with this message but disagree with the proposal. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

== By the Numbers ==

Greetings all,

So we all know that Randall numbers each XKCD comic with an ordinal number in a simple ascending sequence. I have become exceedingly intrigued by the particular properties of numbers now, especially their factors and primes. The most recent prime-numbered comic is [[3109]] and we'll soon see another one with [[3119]]. Does Randall ascribe any meaning or humor to the numbers that happen to appear as the posts play out? He certainly celebrates special dates! As a math-humor-based comic, there certainly must be jokes or surprises hidden therein. I'm not sure I've noticed any yet, though. [[386]] is certainly notorious, though doesn't seem to have a direct sort of Intel connection. [[42]] is unremarkable.

I once read a novel with an autistic protagonist, and each chapter was assigned a prime number. I will henceforth be on the lookout for interesting numerical happenstance as Randall continues to post! Anyone else? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 08:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

== Misc pages ==
I would like to propose the creation of an additional category for "miscellaneous pages" that aren't really comics, and which generally have a URL slug that's an English word or phrase instead of a number. This includes xkcd.com/YES and xkcd.com/NO, both of which currently have articles. It also includes these ones:

::''[Note by User:FaviFake: I organised this section and moved the links below]''

...and others as they are found or recovered. If only we could access the forum thread mentioned on the YES and NO pages! I was able to find a link to the thread here, but it's inaccessible. A
It's the one labeled "Hidden pages on xkcd": [https://web.archive.org/web/20170927200737/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=973b8a1dcd0a727a9177aa757108d4f6&start=250]. I was able to find the pages above via Reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/gixd96/what_are_all_the_hidden_pages_on_xkcd_that_you/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/35whzf/what/] --[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 00:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: I got into the forum page! [https://web.archive.org/web/20151206001238/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110093] We can now add these pages to the list:
[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 23:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

===Pages===
* http://xkcd.com/yes {{Done|Created: [[YES]]}}
** http://xkcd.com/no {{Done|Created: [[NO]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/nakedpictures {{Done|Created: [[nakedpictures]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/spiral {{Done|Created: [[spiral]]}}
**Likely a reference to [[1488: Flowcharts]] (Which links to Spiral) and [[2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral]], spirals above images of people and things

* http://xkcd.com/burlap {{Done|Created: [[Burlap]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/simplewriter {{Done|Created: [[Simple Writer]]}}
**Tool to Write Like [[Up Goer Five]] and [[Thing Explainer]]

* http://xkcd.com/tree_prank
**This is so funny

* http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html {{Done|Existing: [[Blue Eyes]]}}
** http://xkcd.com/solution.html, the solution to the problem (also found on [[Blue Eyes]]

* http://xkcd.com/morphs ([https://web.archive.org/web/20130313175333/http://xkcd.com:80/morphs/ archive only] — [https://web.archive.org/web/20060219184352/http://www.xkcd.com:80/morphs/ earlier version with more text])
**"Using several pieces of imaging software, including Photoshop and an image morphing program, I make composite photos of people."

* http://xkcd.com/chesscoaster
**"People playing chess on roller coasters, inspired by this comic:" image

* http://xkcd.com/kite
**"These are pictures I took by hanging cameras from kites, a hobby I've played with on and off over the years"

*https://xkcd.com/kite/kite_trick.jpg

* http://xkcd.com/dot {{Done|Created: [[dot]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/election ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141014075718/http://xkcd.com/election/ archive only])
**Used by randall for tracking elections, "it's the fastest analysis of the state of the race minute-by-minute".

* http://xkcd.com/event {{Done|Created: [[event]]}} (I still don't quite get it)
**There's an image on this site that a web browser fails to load, but when downloaded, Windows Photo Viewer can view the image.

* http://xkcd.com/now (redirect to [[1335: Now]])

* http://xkcd.com/plus {{Done|Created: [[plus]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/sub ([https://web.archive.org/web/20130111054027/http://xkcd.com/sub/ archive only]) — "The Sub Project", a long explanation of how Randall and others build submarines?

* http://xkcd.com/temp ([https://web.archive.org/web/20061219193846/http://www.xkcd.com/temp/ archive only])
**This is super interesting! It lists other sub-directories. [https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.xkcd.com/temp/* These are the ones that survived in the archive]:
**http://xkcd.com/temp/email.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20100305065807/http://xkcd.com/temp/email.txt archive only]) — Seems to be an email exchange between Randall and someone else?
**http://xkcd.com:80/temp/euphoria.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160401222138id_/http://xkcd.com:80/temp/euphoria.txt archive only]) — This says "<Sphere> Ok, that last Randall who said 'to clarify' was actually Randall, but pretty much none of the others were. Also no Sphere after this gets linked in chat a second time is actually Randall either. Randall is probably not there."
**https://xkcd.com/temp/evidenceofidentity.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20201118232320/https://xkcd.com/temp/evidenceofidentity.txt archive only]) — "[Randall] Hello to everyone who waited in line to say hi to me on my How To book tour and specifically mentioned this chat! [Sierra] Hello mr. probably not the real Randall :D [...]"
***The rest are all images:
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/baby_mop.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070127045748/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/baby_mop.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/darthswingset.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070127045624/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/darthswingset.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/deb6d13b50a581304bac385c463b09c1.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070225103228/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/deb6d13b50a581304bac385c463b09c1.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/Hacker%20Grave.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070213182708/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/Hacker%20Grave.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/hotornot.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20061219194445/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/hotornot.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/how_rumors_start_office.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070111000437/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/how_rumors_start_office.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/owned.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070228031547/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/owned.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/shark.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20061214082834/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/shark.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/you_cannot_pass.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070323001005/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/you_cannot_pass.jpg archive only])

* http://xkcd.com/test ([https://web.archive.org/web/20170510061033/https://xkcd.com/test/ archive only])
**This appears identical to the regular xkcd.com homepage, it returns a 404 as of today

* http://xkcd.com/time (redirect to comic [[1190: Time]])

* http://xkcd.com/twitter (redirect to https://x.com/xkcd)

* http://xkcd.com/cyborg.txt
**Interesting script. According to [https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/05/20/gps-cyborg-implant/ an old blag article], it is "a short Python script that uses a USB GPS device under Linux to help with navigation. It doesn’t have maps or anything — it just gives distances and, while you’re moving, the direction to the destination (as in 'two o’clock'). It prints this info on the terminal and speaks it using speech synthesis."

* http://xkcd.com/channel.html ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141011002528/https://xkcd.com/channel.html archive only])
**I have no idea what this it. It's full of gibberish and Chinese text.

* http://xkcd.com/channel.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141014083026/http://xkcd.com/channel.txt archive only])
** Same as above, but it downloads the file to the PC.

* http://xkcd.com/me.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141014101900/http://xkcd.com:80/me.txt archive only])
**Only says "I am not in 1110.n01se.net anymore". [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/5tqrew/xkcd_secret_page/ Learn more in this Reddit thread], in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvLxOVYeo5w YouTube video of how it used to work], and in the [https://github.com/n01se/1110 GitHub for 1110.n01se.net]. I'm assuming Randall wanted to say that anyone who tries to impersonate him in the future isn't him?

* http://xkcd.com/why.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20180729163548/https://xkcd.com/why.txt archive only])
**Contains 33 THOUSAND "why" questions. May be related to [[1256: Questions]]? Very interesting!

* http://xkcd.com/bitcoin {{Done|Existing: [[Bitcoin address]]}}
**There's also this one, which we have dissected on the page [[Bitcoin address]] (very interesting read!)

* http://holistic.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031258/http://holistic.xkcd.com/ archive only])
**"The XKCD Holistic Browser. Because we are all one. Type a web address and you'll be taken to one typed by someone else."

* https://aram.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20110816163403/http://aram.xkcd.com/ archive only])
**"This page is regenerated every day and may be NSFW. It shows a random result from a Google image search for IMG_????.jpg plus a random caption:" Seems it stopped working completely after a few years and got stuck one image&caption. Aram inspired [[Black Hat]], see his page for more.

* https://xkcd.com/verizon/ {{Done|Created: [[verizon]]}}

* http://mail.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120321204721/http://mail.xkcd.com/ archive only])
**Seems Randall set it up but never used it.

* https://xkcd.com/personal
**There was a /personal folder on xkcd, but it's been entirely wiped https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://xkcd.com/personal/*

*https://xkcd.com/ngram-charts/ {{Done|Created: [[ngram charts]]}}
**Still online, but the images are missing even in [https://web.archive.org/web/20120225171410/http://xkcd.com:80/ngram-charts the archive]. "Some of the interesting charts I've come across while using Google Books ngrams (which analyzes the frequency of word use in their scanned books corpus over time)"

* https://xkcd.com/color/rgb/
** https://xkcd.com/color/rgb.txt

* http://68.57.186.221:8080/ ([https://web.archive.org/web/20041024201125/http://68.57.186.221:8080/ archive only])
** xkcd.com redirected to this at some points during 2004, this capture is from October 24th of 2004 specifically.

* https://throw.xkcd.com (only available [https://web.archive.org/web/20200919232527/throw.xkcd.com/ in the archive])
**This was likely hacked, see [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/iw9jsg/throwxkcdcom/ this Reddit thread]: ''"I emailed the xkcd.com webmaster, it was a testing URL he forgot to shut down. It's fixed now."''

* https://c.xkcd.com
**This is mostly all for comics with dynamic content. There are many subpages, see [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/j54lx3/does_anyone_know_what_cxkcdcom_is/ this reddit thread].
**https://c.xkcd.com/xb/feed
**http://c.xkcd.com/random/comic (redirects to random comic)
**https://c.xkcd.com/graph/1
**[https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/j54lx3/does_anyone_know_what_cxkcdcom_is/ There are others].

* https://static.xkcd.com/ (404, not in archive. [http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://static.xkcd.com/* archived subpages])
** http://static.xkcd.com/bl.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213845/http://static.xkcd.com/bl.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/br.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213841/http://static.xkcd.com/br.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/favicon.ico ([http://web.archive.org/web/20071208203917/http://static.xkcd.com/favicon.ico archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/general.css ([http://web.archive.org/web/20071208203917/http://static.xkcd.com/general.css archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/ieonly.css ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070911163429/http://static.xkcd.com/ieonly.css archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/ml.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213838/http://static.xkcd.com/ml.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/mr.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213832/http://static.xkcd.com/mr.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/tl.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213828/http://static.xkcd.com/tl.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/tr.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213835/http://static.xkcd.com/tr.png archive only])
** http://www.static.xkcd.com/robots.txt ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://www.static.xkcd.com/robots.txt archive only])
** https://almamater.xkcd.com/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20130402215109/https://almamater.xkcd.com/ archive only])
:: https://almamater.xkcd.com/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20150209005631/https://almamater.xkcd.com/ archive only])
:: and errors out: https://almamater.xkcd.com/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20160528035956/https://almamater.xkcd.com/ archive only, errors out])
*** http://almamater.xkcd.com/best.csv ([http://web.archive.org/web/20130511122543/http://almamater.xkcd.com/best.csv archive only])
***See comic [[1193: Externalities]]
{{misc page}}
You can monitor the pages that are using this template (so the brand new webpage explanations) by going to [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:misc_page]]

===How should we treat them?===
This is great! I think we should first create an article for each of them, and after we have a few articles then we can start to figure out a good name for the category and answer some questions, like:

*Should we add a new parameter to the template for these non-comics? To do that, we would have to ask an admin to edit the {{tl|comic}} template to allow us to do that. We can ask Kynde, no big deal.

*Some pages, like [[Blue Eyes]] and [[Bitcoin address]] are already in other categories, like [[:Category:Extra comics]] and [[:Category:Design of xkcd.com]]. Should we use the existing categories, or add a new one? How do we distinguish between, for example, [[Blue Eyes]], [[Bitcoin address]], and [[YES]], which are all in theory "misc pages".

*Where should the new category be categorised?

*What title should we give for explanations of pages that don't have a name, like xkcd.com/dot? That one is just titled "xkcd.com/dot", unlike pages like Blue Eyes and [[YES]]. Would it become "dot", "Dot", something else? Should we keep it coherent or base ourselves solely on the rendered title on the official site?

I love the idea! I currently don't have time, but I will create these pages eventually. If anyone else wants to chime in, please do! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:"Unnumbered publications", or similar, could cover ''anything'' that wasn't xkcd.com/<digits>. Wouldn't cover replacements ([[2642: No One Was Hurt]] was originally 2642, for example), but that's a different class from deliberately off-series items. Also, given that often they are entirely non-image (the Yes and No), or straight text and multi-image (as per Blue Eyes, or other articles with a WhatIf-ish feel to them), I think calling them "comic"s is stretching the term.
:Though "miscellaneous pages" sort of covers this, I've a feeling that there's at least one... 'entity'... that is built upon multiple actual 'pages', but the list of candidates above doesn't contain any that look like they're what I'm vaguely thinking of. (Neither was it anything like the xkcd survey, or other interactive (numbered) comics, but maybe I'll bring it back to mind sooner rather than later.)
:As to the use of {{template|comic}}, I think we could spring to a (modified, 'inspired-by') template specifically for all these no-number/off-sequence explanation headers. Either explicit "prev=" and "next=" (per comic, ''could'' get quite mixed up if not kept uncontradictory) or a "position=" which could help maintain a list (and, from that, an auto-generated first/prev/next/last 'page ring') without having to subvert expectations of fitting in with the normal [[Template:LATESTCOMIC]] system.
:With the Comic template already equipped to deal with "no-number 'comics'", there wouldn't (in the first instance) be much work needed to "decomic" the new copy, with the exact method of resequencing (if desired) as a parallel series being the biggest question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what the last sentenc means, but I like the idea of a new template! However, I don't think we should call the category "Unnumbered publications". Isn't that just [[:Category:Extra comics]] but without comics [[Disappearing Sunday Update]] and [[No One Was Hurt]]? We should establish a criterion to add pages to this category and then figure out a name i think. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

On this subject, is there any reason why it's [[YES]] and [[NO]] (currently the valid links) rather than [[Yes]] and [[No]] / [[yes]] and [[no]] (currently invalid links)? And I don't mean "why aren't there redirects?", which I don't even think is the right way of resolving this, but what was the thinking? (Which then didn't result in [[DOT]], etc, so there's ''definitely'' some inconsistency, one way or another.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 21:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see inconsistencies. The name of the browser tab for the yes page is "YES" by Randall, same for NO. Instead, the page for [[dot]] is called "xkcd.com/dot/". We could use that, but that's likely not what Randall intended and might have been a coding oversight. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've created the {{tl|misc page}} template for these pages and removed the incomplete template until we reach consensus on what to do with them. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 14:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Ahem, I'd like to remind everyone that they can feel free to comment on the best way to manage these. Or if they should be included in the wiki at all. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What if we just create a subcategory for These. It is xkcd so it should belong here. Should not be in the random queue but something like a button to get to these. {{unsigned ip|216.125.50.226|16:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)}}

=== New page "Spiral" ===

I found a new page at [http://xkcd.com/spiral xkcd/spiral]. what should I do? Thanks!
This is my first post, sorry it's not formatted correctly. -- [[Special:Contributions/73.169.159.188|73.169.159.188]] 00:27, 12 October 2025‎

: Welcome. Good find! Any suggestions? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 01:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
::I've moved this over to Coordination and uploaded all images on spiral. I'll be making the page soon. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 05:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Moving to correct location where we're discussing these pages. More discussion about how we should treat them is welcome! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:Category:Extra pages]] ===
I've created a category called Extra pages for all of these pages. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
:So, right now we have "Category:Extra pages" ''and'' "Category:Extra comics". Some ''are'' unnumbered comics (plus at least one "was a number, then replaced") and some are 'merely' pages (with possible a fuzzy line between for 'pages' that show images-that-aren't-comics), perhaps we should be consistent between which are which, and how they relate to 'standard' numbered comics.
:For example, being an Extra Comics was (officially, but you could also manually add it) initiated by the "extra=yes" param to {{template|comic}}. This also (theoretically, problems with the randomness backend aside) adds them to the Random Comics link-choice, ''without'' adding them to the Comic List numbers (such that it states "we have #### comics", where #### should not be different from the latest comic number, as recently established).
:Perhaps:
:*Make the comic template accept "extra=comic" or "extra=page", instead of "extra=yes".
:**Perhaps "extra=yes" 'remains' to default to one or the other? ...nah, just make sure all the current "=yes" ones are assigned beforehand.
:**"extra=no" just defaults back to behaviour without any "extra=" at all, of course, pretty much as currently.
:*Each of these new distinctions assigns to the 'Extra' category that fits it, but keeps it out of the All (numbered) Comics list, as being not numbered (and some not being 'comics')
:*Either ''just'' keep Extra Comics feeding to the Random Comic list (All Comics+Extra Comics, as we've painstakingly set it up to do, recently) or ''also'' include Extra Pages (it being AC+EC+EP in the Special:Random target list/whatever). TBD, depends upon whether you like a strictly "non-comic page" potentially popping up as a 'treat' for people.
:...that's all a ''little'' extra work. Some of which I could probably do right now (though maybe some pages are Protected against my input, haven't checked), but I think this needs discussion before doing any actual refining of the current setup.
:Might have been better to have proposed and discussed the Extra Pages details before starting that, too, but I'm happy to use this setup as a stepping stone given that it's been done already. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.89|82.132.244.89]] 14:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

=== Update on ngrams ===

The images on the ngrams page appear to be generated dynamically. The original URLs are broken, but can be restored by changing "/chart" to "/graph". This doesn't fix the HTML page, but it does render each of the 58 URLs accessible - see below.

All graphs default to a corpus from 2009. Note that some graphs, such as the one noted "cherry picking" below, look very different using a more recent corpus.

* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=President+Lincoln%2CPresident+Roosevelt%2CPresident+Kennedy%2CPresident+Johnson%2CPresident+Nixon%2CPresident+Reagan%2CPresident+Bush&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fuck&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Great+War%2Cthe+World+War%2CWorld+War+I&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=2
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=christian%2Cchristianity&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=aliens%2C+predators&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=explosion+in+popularity&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=blue+line&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=upward+trend&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gay%2Clesbian%2Cbisexual&year_start=1940&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Leviticus+18%2Cturn+the+other+cheek&year_start=1960&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3 (cherry-picking)
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vegetarian&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=drunk&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=television%2C+tuberculosis&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=love%2Chope%2Cfaith%2C+sex&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hope&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=entomology%2Cetymology&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carriage%2Ccar%2Cautomobile&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=irregardless%2Cregardlessly%2Cunregarding&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a+bird+in+the+hand%2Clive+by+the+sword%2Clook+before+you+leap%2Ca+penny+saved&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=war&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Muslim%2CMoslem%2CMoslim%2CMussulman%2C+Moslam&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Empire%2C+empire&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decline%2Cprogress&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=progress&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=war&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Rapture&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=history%2Cpast%2Cfuture&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Star+Wars%2C+Star+Trek&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Jesus+Christ&year_start=1720&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=President&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=tyranny&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=power+to+the+people&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=flag&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=4&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=end+of+the+world&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Bible+study&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=God+bless+America&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=merry+Christmas%2Chappy+holidays&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Space&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=old+fashioned&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sword%2C+gun&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pirate&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ayn+Rand&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Marx&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Marx%2C+Marxy%2C+Marxist%2C+Marxiest&year_start=1850&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=communism%2Ccommunist%2Csocialist&year_start=1830&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Russia%2C+USSR&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=savior%2CSavior&year_start=1720&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=trend&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=girly&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=restroom%2C+bathroom%2C+toilet&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pursuit+of+happiness&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=telechart%2Ctelephone%2Ctelegram%2Ctelevision%2Cradio%2Cinternet&year_start=1840&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=king&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=science&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decade&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=thousand&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hundred%2Cthousand%2Cmillion%2Cbillion%2Ctrillion&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=jillion%2Czillion%2Cbazillion%2Ckazillion&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 16:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

==Visual Editor?==
I, being a nerd in high school, edit on more than just this wiki. For example, I edit on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, the default editing mode is a visual editor, which automatically converts your wikitext into the final product in real time. It's useful on many levels, and would save all of us a lot of time (I've spent at least 2 hours total fixing broken wikitext). I feel that using this tool would increase overall productivity in the wiki, and probably lessen the amount of people who are intimidated when attempting to edit, allowing more people to join and contribute to the community. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 22:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

:Good luck telling that to jeff! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 12:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

::Ugh. Well, he's gotta come back eventually, right? He's paying for the domain, after all. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 16:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

:::Or maybe he just forgot and we actually don't want him to come back. Who knows! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

::::Name one person who wants Jeff to just not come back. Either way, I want him back, and I suggested this just in case. This would also be really cool for me, as I joined after jeff's last known user page edit in 2018. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 23:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::Jeez that was a joke. Ofc I want him back lol. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 20:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::still no response from Jeff or any of his friends on: Reddit, X/Twitter; GitHub; Bluesky; Mastodon; and email. Oh, and I asked some person on YouTube with the username lcarsos (as in the other 'crat on here) but I think that he deleted my comment on his video (multiple times). (just a little fyi) '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Does he even remember this? Maybe they all got struck by lightning at the same time while calling someone who just sneezed and saying 'bless you'. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

==Unicode emoji support==
This suggestion was made in response to the discussion above. I was completely unable to realize that FaviFake was joking. I feel that Unicode emojis would drastically improve the wiki and allow for more detailed conveyance of thoughts and feelings, and prevent catastrophic misunderstandings not unlike the one above. Other people have insulted me due to the fact that I was unable to convey enough emotion. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 17:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:Text-only media, like this, always has the issue of not being understood, but if someone forgets (or consciously declines) to put a "/s" or ";)" in there, they'll probably also not add an emoji.
:Of course, one person's very dry humour might go so far over the head of another person that not even a strong hint helps, whereas another's sense of fun might be so obvious that gilding the lilly even sends the ''wrong'' message about it. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 20:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
: I don't understand your suggestion. 😕 The site appears to allow such emojis to be included; I just copied and pasted. There's also the HTML entity option, e.g. <code>&#128533;</code>. 😕 Or are you asking that the site include code to make it easier to insert emojis? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 16:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

== Custom User-based Signature Template ==

DollarStoreBa'al and I came up with a pretty interesting idea: a template called "sig" that can hold the signatures of other users. This is to allow users to have signatures longer than 255 characters, which is the hard limit set by MediaWiki. To call the template, we can use <nowiki>{{sig|User:XYZ}}</nowiki> and encode the template with wikitext so that each user's signature can be pasted in without confusion. To make things even easier, users can adjust their signatures in Preferences to call this template so that the 4 tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) can still be employed. If enough positive feedback is received, I would love to work on it with the community. If anybody is interested in helping out, please mention it! The template could also function as a signature museum, where you can view other user's custom signatures and get inspiration. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Update. I have found another solution. By creating a sig page, you can call <nowiki>{{User:XYZ/sig}}</nowiki>, which enables you to literally copy-paste whatever's in that page into another page. This was first discovered, I believe, by [[User:Omega/sig|User:Omega]]. I don't believe we need the template anymore, but the signature museum would still be cool! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Not quite sure what it will do. Seems to me that for instance you and [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] already have very advanced signatures (using Dollar's here as another example). My own preferences would be a normal signature, where it is easy to see who has made the comment and where the links takes me... But since you can already make this complicated signatures anyway, I'm not as such opposed to the idea. Am I correct in assuming I need to do something in order for this to be possible as the only active admin at the moment? As I will not come by here regularly, then let me know when there has been some relevant activity. Not just a reply to these questions here. But once some other than you two has chimed in. Else I might forget to come back to look! (I wrote this and then had an edit conflict with 42. So maybe this is not relevant anymore? But I will post it now none the less. But this was as a reply to the first proposal) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi Kynde. Yes, I believe that we don't need your assistance anymore. The need for a template is erased by the existence of /sig pages, and we can create a museum by ourselves. Thanks for trying and chiming in, though! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I do believe the template would work fine... that way it wouldn't show the full wikitext of the signature. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 19:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
bad bad bad bad idea, the sig character limit is 255 for a reason, see {{w|WP:SIGLENGTH}}.

a sig template is an even worse idea, because every instance of it will call #ifexist, an [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgExpensiveParserFunctionLimit expensive parser function]. these make a page take even longer to load, which this wiki definitely does not need. also, expensive fucntions are capped at 500, so you're making a maximum of 500 signatures (not counting other templates). [[user:lett‪herebedarklight|raeb]] 04:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:As well as the WP:SIGLENGTH bit, if anybody actually cares about the precedent set by 'mother Wikipedia' then various other dos-and-don'ts from {{w|Wikipedia:Signatures}} might well apply to some extant personal signatures, from the "don't make it look like it's not your signature" through to being inconsiderate of the colour-blind and those otherwise vision-limited.
:It also gives some nice demonstrations of what ''can'' be done (within reason). Though I still say that just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. "Looks complicated, codes simply" would be my suggestion. Elegance of spirit, not a bloomin' juggernaut, if you're inclined to take my advice at all. You can still use personally distinctive signatures, and probably should. (Though, quite possibly, by the middle of next week, half the latest Talk comments are going to have orange-background. Don't care about that possibility, as much as I's like having vaguely recognisable namepage and timestamp bits to it that don't take effort to discern properly ''either'' when rendered ''or'' in raw code.) I have simple tastes, perhaps more than others... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.247.193|82.132.247.193]] 05:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Fully agree with raeb here, the last thing we need is more server load.
:*If you transclude them, then there's the server load and maximum transclusion problem.
:*If you substitute the template each time, the issue of hard-to-parse editing views gets worse. It's already annoying having to mentally "remove" your html codes when adding a comment, and we also don't have the VE, which would hide the code. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::I got edit conflicted, dangit. Anyway, both your complaints are either invalid or could easily be solved. The #ifexist limit could easily be bypassed if we simply delete the signatures of people who haven't contributed in, say, 6 months. The wikitext complaint is also invalid. Using the template as a signature would simply show <nowiki>{{User:XYZ/Sig}}</nowiki>, '''not the wikitext required to display the signature.''' Sincerely, --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 14:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi
simply delete the signatures of people who haven't contributed in, say, 6 months
:::''What?!''
:::Also, my 1st point wasn't mainly about #ifexist but about server load. It's as if you were adding the amount of code roughly equivalent to {{tl|incomplete}} to every single page you commented on, multiple times on the same page. This absolutely causes a ton of unnecessary server load. Imagine adding {{tl|incomplete}} hundreds of times to dozens and dozens of talk pages across the entire wiki. The software needs to keep all of them up-to-date. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::::What's wrong with deleting signatures? They can just make a new one, and 6 months seems like a good cutoff for 'they aren't coming back.' I know Tori was away for more than 6 months, she's an exception. The server load is an issue though. Maybe we need to wait for that until Jeff is able to fix the current server issues. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 17:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I randomly drop in every 6–12 months, for what it's worth. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 13:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Why penalize people who only occasionally contribute? What does it buy us? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 17:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::::DSB, the Template is a horrible idea, ok? I slept on it and after further reflection, it really doesn't add much. People can always subst in signatures through <nowki>{{_}}</nowki>, and it'll also strain the server way too much. There's also a reason why sigs are capped at 255 characters-it'll become impossible to read talk pages if everyone had hulking 1000+ character sigs (like the one that I created). Please stop fixating so much on this specific idea. Also, it is quite rude to penalize people who only occasionally edit (and I don't want to be a special case or something like that-please stop treating me as some godly figure who is better than everyone else.) '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, you're right. The 255 character limit stands. Thread over, back to explaining. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 14:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

== Explain XKCD Discord/Social Media Server? ==

I was experiencing Cloudflare errors in the past 24 hours that had prevented me from accessing this website. It's working now, but I'm worried that something else would happen again. Would anybody be interested in organizing a group chat/server or something of the like outside of Explain XKCD? I would personally love if it was on Discord, as it's easy to use, convenient, is built great, and I use it often. If anybody else has suggestions, I'd be open to hear them! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 20:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
:Me too. It greatly worried me. If you want, I can set up a discord server. Personally, I prefer discord as it's very simple and has a clean interface. Again, only if you're interested. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
::[https://discord.com/invite/zGEVanBBAx Here you go!] '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::NICE! I wonder if we should message Kynde and see if he'll add it to the global messages. The more people, the better. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 01:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I didn't want to influence your original choice, but it would have been nice if you'd have chosen something less 'commercial', as a platform. Hope it helps, just don't forget about everyone else! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.131|82.132.238.131]] 09:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Discord is free. I feel it should be easy for everybody to join, even if they didn't already have discord. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 12:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::"Freemium" would be a better description, with all the Nitro-mandating stuff. But I already deleted my more specific past observations about all that. And see no point in resurrecting my original Discord presence as you probably can do more chatting about the rest of us without too many random strangers like me turning up, whatever the other IP-onlies decide to do. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.246.82|82.132.246.82]] 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

===Updating the global message board===
::''Moved from [[User_talk:Kynde#Updating_the_global_message_board]]'' [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I am excited to announce that explainxkcd now has a discord server! I was wondering if you could add it to the global message board (idk what it's called, actually. The one with the incomplete explanations message.) to include the discord invite link? The more people who join, the better, just in case cloudflare decides to have those issues again. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 13:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi. you did not include the link? Also I would like to know if other frequent editors think this is a great idea? Not all who edit here wish to be contactable on other platforms. I do understand where you wish the message to be though, and if this is a good idea we can put it there. I'm not certain what other people thinks though? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::I, for one, think it's a good idea. It's managed by Tori, so it's in very good hands. The only thing I'm afraid of is that discussions may not take place here, but I don't think that's enough of a reason not to promote it.
::The link is at [[User:42.book.addict]], in the second notice. I think we should say something like
In case this site goes down, we have created a Discord server as an emergency form of communication. (link)
::We aren't "excited to announce" a backup form of communication. Discussions must be public, not on external sites. This is merely a backup. I think it can then be removed from the sitenotice after a month or less, and mentioned on another page somewhere else, discretely. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for chiming in FaviFake. Can you find a good place for this, because I would like to link to a local page from the sitenotice. I do realize that people will have to go to this discord before problems arises, but I guess that is the way it ism and that wont change no matter how we announce it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::But 42 does intend for this to be used as "a fun place to connect with each other". Leaving it discrete would make it impossible for this to happen, because people won't see it. Also, for the record, FaviFake, 42 and I were. Multiple people. Me and her. That's how the English language works. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 16:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes you two are the ones who wishes for it and FaviFake was the first to chime in. Don't patronize me please! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have no idea what you're saying regarding the "English language", but please refrain from saying... whatever that was.
But 42 does intend for this to be used as "a fun place to connect with each other"
:::::Could you stop talking on behalf of 42? I believe you've been asked many times not to do that. You can either tell us what '''you''' think, or let others speak for themselves. 42 isn't a goddess and is able to engage in this conversation without someone "defending" her opinions.
:::::I'll create [[explain xkcd:Discord]] but need to think more about how this is supposed to be pitched. I do not want people to be incentivised to use a private, inaccessible discord server to, for example, talk about the newest comic. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I moved this discussions back here because it's relevant to the entire wiki, not just Kynde' talk.
:::::''Moved from [[User_talk:Kynde#Updating_the_global_message_board]]'' [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I was just trying to simultaneously defend both of our opinions and state the facts. Also, thank you to FaviFake for moving this conversation to the proposals. This seems to be happening with Kynde's talk page a lot recently. (that being twice, but I've never seen it happen before, soo...) --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 20:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi, it's me. The "global message board" DSB was referencing to is the [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice|site notice]]. If Kynde could add it in the format that FaviFake said, that would be great! Also, I had thought that the server ''could'' be a fun place for us to bond/talk, but that can obviously be conducted in DMs. FaviFake's reasoning for having all conversations on-site makes perfect sense to me. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 20:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::So THAT'S what it's called! I am one of today's lucky 10,000. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 23:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if I'm wrong or not, but I think of the discord as 2 things:
*A backup form of communication
*An informal place to hang out with fellow readers and editors.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

==Dark theme?==
I saw a post about this in the archives that went unanswered, so I'll ask it here: Why doesn't the wiki have a dark theme? I feel it would be very useful for those who don't want to be blinded by editing. Wikipedia's got one, and it looks great! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:Dark mode IS a thing. You need to create a common.css page to use it though. Copy paste in this to get dark mode (make sure to hit "Show preview" to test it out before you save!):

<code><nowiki> /* NQH's totally cool and amazingly radical dark mode */
/* Licensed CC0-1.0, no rights reserved. */

/* Sets everything to dark background. */
body * {background-color: #111 !important; color: #DDD !important;}
div.mw-body, div.mw-body * {background-color: #222 !important;}

/* Vector */

.mw-wiki-logo {background-color: #00000000 !important; filter: invert(100%);}

/* Monobook */

div#column-one > div#p-cactions > div.pBody > ul > li > a {background-color: #222 !important;}

/* Modern */

div#mw_header, div#mw_header h1#firstHeading {background-color: #000 !important;}
div#mw_content {background-color: #222 !important;}

/* Cologne blue */

/* Diff. */
td.diff-context, td.diff-context * {color: #777 !important; border-color: #333 !important;}
td.diff-deletedline {border-color: #F33 !important;}
td.diff-addedline {border-color: #3F3 !important;}
del.diffchange-inline {color: #F55 !important;}
ins.diffchange-inline {color: #5F5 !important;}

/* Numbers in history view. */
span.mw-plusminus-pos {color: #5F5 !important;}
span.mw-plusminus-neg {color: #F55 !important;}
strong.mw-plusminus-pos {color: #0F0 !important; font-size: 1.2em;}
strong.mw-plusminus-pos {color: #0F0 !important; font-size: 1.2em;}

/* Links. */
a[href$="redlink=1"] {color: #F00 !important; text-decoration: line-through !important;}
a:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #88F !important;}
a:visited:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #AAF !important;}
a:hover:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #AAF !important; text-decoration: underline !important; font-weight: bold !important;}
a:active:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #FFF !important; text-decoration: underline !important; font-weight: bold !important;} </nowiki></code>

--'''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

::In response to DSB, in your userpage... The links being white... Which links? See the "/* Links. */" section. The various links are #F00 (red, the invalid ones), #88F (light blue), #AAF (lighter blue), or #FFF (white). If you don't like them, change them.
::The other things can probably be fixed if we know exactly what you're getting and what you actually expect. Also a good idea to check for typos/miscopying, via basic troubleshooting. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.246.204|82.132.246.204]] 22:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I got edit-conflicted with... seemingly no change. Anyway, I found a better version which I now use. It's much cleaner and looks like it belongs. Only issue is that the sidebar templates have inverted colors? But very minor. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 01:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
:::CODE!!!<code><nowiki>/* WikimediaUI Dark Mode
*
* Wikimedia Design Team 2019-2021
* Original authors:
* - Volker E. – [[User:Volker_E._(WMF)]]
* - Alex Hollender
* - MusikAnimal
* - Carolyn Li-Madeo
* - Jdlrobson
*
* Original at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volker_E._(WMF)/dark-mode.css
* Version for Gadget CSS skin override usage only.
* Basically removed of all interaction element styles and
* set to `html` instead of JS injected `.client-dark-mode` class.
*
* Last updated: 2021-04-20
*
*/

/** To prevent 'jumping' effect within #p-personal in Vector/Monobook. Overrides [[MediaWiki:Gadget-dark-mode-toggle-pagestyles.css]] **/
body.skin-vector-legacy :not(#pt-darkmode) + #pt-watchlist::before,
body.skin-monobook :not(#pt-darkmode) + #pt-watchlist::before {
content: "Light mode";
}

@media screen {

/* set height for monobook and timeless, because the filter in FF needs dimensions to get it to apply */
html {
height: 100%;
}

/* Filter needs to reside on `html`, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T221425#5153917 */
html,
/* All other selectors have `filter` double-applied to turn back to “normal” by inheritance */
html img:not( .mw-invert ),
html video:not( .mw-invert ),
html ogvjs:not( .mw-invert ),
html svg:not( .mw-invert ),
html iframe:not( .mw-invert ),
html .mw-no-invert,
html .cdx-no-invert,
html td .diffchange,
html .wvui-typeahead-suggestion__thumbnail,
html .skin-minerva .mw-notification-visible .mw-notification-content,
html .oo-ui-searchWidget-results .oo-ui-iconElement-icon,
html .list-thumb,
/* Extensions */
html .media-viewer .image img,
html .media-viewer .mw-file-description img {
filter: invert( 1 ) hue-rotate( 180deg );
}

/* Reset overrides, needed where double application above isn't working. */
/* Vector modern */
html .skin-vector .mw-logo-wordmark,
html .skin-vector .mw-logo-tagline,
html .skin-timeless .mw-wiki-title > img,
html .wvui-icon svg,
html .mw-ext-score img,
html .skin-invert img,
html .skin-invert-image img,
html .mw-hiero-table img {
filter: none;
}

/* Backgrounds */
html table,
html table.ambox-content,
html table.toccolours,
html .mw-notification,
html .mwe-popups,
html .infobox,
html .toc,
html .thumbinner,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'] > figcaption,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'] > figcaption,
html .wikitable,
html .cbnnr-main,
html .cx-callout,
html .overlay.media-viewer,
html #simpleSearch,
html #simpleSearch #searchInput,
html #siteNotice #centralNotice .cnotice {
background-color: #ddd;
}

/* Borders */
html body,
html h1,
html h2,
html h3,
html h4,
html h5,
html h6,
html table.ambox-content,
html table.toccolours,
html .mw-notification,
html .infobox,
html .toc,
html .thumbinner,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'] > figcaption,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'] > figcaption,
html #mw-head,
html #mw-panel,
/* Vector 2022 uses a transparent border for margin collapsing
(T312822) so don't apply this rule there */
.skin-vector-legacy #content.mw-body,
html #simpleSearch,
html #simpleSearch #searchInput,
html #siteNotice #centralNotice .cnotice {
border-color: #cdcbc8;
}

/* Links */
/* Links: normal */
html a,
html .vector-menu-tabs li a,
/* Backwards compatible VectorTabs, deprecated in MW v1.35. */
html .vectorTabs li a,
html .toctogglelabel,
html .mw-parser-output a.external,
html .mw-parser-output a.extiw,
html .mw-parser-output a.extiw:active,
html #mw-panel .portal .body li a {
/* color: #69f; Proposal below for level AA conformance, see also https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T233266
`#36c` is transformed by :root `filter` to be closer to chosen `#69f`. */
color: #36c;
}

/* Links: visited */
html a:visited,
html .mw-parser-output a.extiw:visited,
html #mw-panel .portal .body li a:visited {
/* color: #709bbd; Proposal below uses to-be-standardized color from https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T213778 */
color: #6b4ba1;
}

/* Links: red */
html a.new,
html .vector-menu-tabs li.new a,
html .vectorTabs li.new a {
color: #ff6e6e;
}

/* ::: Special Element Treatments ::: */
/* Image thumbnails */
html .thumbimage,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'] > :not(figcaption) .mw-file-element,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'] > :not(figcaption) .mw-file-element {
border: 0;
}

/* Content image (thumbnail) SVGs */
/* `*not( .mbox-image )` exception doesn't work for unclear reasons */
html .image img[ src*='svg' ],
html .mw-file-description img[ src*='svg' ],
html img[ src*='Wiktionary-logo'] {
background-color: #fff;
border-radius: 1px;
}

/* Dealing with false positives from selector above */
html .mw-echo-ui-notificationItemWidget-icon img[ src*='svg' ],
html .mbox-image .image img[ src*='svg' ],
html .mbox-image .mw-file-description img[ src*='svg' ],
/* Emoji generated by [[Template:Emoji]] */
html .emoji .image img,
html .emoji .mw-file-description img,
/* Vote symbols on Talk pages */
html .image img[ alt^="Symbol" ],
html .mw-file-description img[ alt^="Symbol" ] {
background-color: transparent;
}

/* Page previews */
html .mwe-popups {
box-shadow: 0 30px 90px -20px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.3 ), 0 0 1px #000;
}

html .mwe-popups.flipped-y:after,
html .mwe-popups.flipped-x-y:after {
border-top: 11px solid #ddd;
}

html .mwe-popups.mwe-popups-no-image-pointer:after {
border-bottom: 11px solid #ddd;
}

/* Contributions menu */
html .cx-callout-1:after {
border-bottom-color: #ddd;
}

/* Mobile Wikipedia logo mobile header */
html .branding-box img {
filter: brightness( 0 );
}

}

@-moz-document url-prefix() {
body {
background: #000;
}
}

@-moz-document url-prefix() {
@supports (overflow-clip-margin: 1px) {
body {
background: #fff;
}
}
}
</nowiki></code>
--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 13:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

==Page Creation site notice for new accounts==
Many, many, '''''many''''' new people come around and ask other users about how to create their own user pages. Personally, I think we could stop the confusion by coding a different type of 'you do not have permission to create this page' error for new accounts, which would look something like this:

'To create new pages, your account must be at least a week old and have 50 edits. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page.'

Just a thought, in case admins can do that without Jeff's involvement. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

: I'd {{template|Actual citation needed}} on the "many"s, unless you're aware of off-site discussions about this one. It's actually pretty infrequent, so I feel you must be counting over several years, having found a number of historic examples dotted around on pages such as this. That said, it ''is'' currently as much an FAQ as anything else ([[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ#Why can't I create my user page and upload images?|as actually mentioned there]], for anyone who bothers to read it). And we do sometimes get a new-users, the ones freshly post-validated to create pages merrily 'helping out' all those they think need their help in that regard.
: Can I suggest that we do not have the exact number of edits so prominantly, though. Within the last day, as a matter of fact, we seem to have had someone making many useless edits (mostly of the form of adding extra spaces into seemingly random places within seemingly random articles), possibly in order to have created a new page of their own. And that's ''really'' not to the spirit of things. Inviting, or at least suggestively hinting, the possibility of near-vandalism (hopefully not ''actual'' vandalism) for the impatient who just see it as a 'target' to try to reach. And the truly and genuinely eager to contribute can easily have clocked up that number of edits to existing pages ''with no edit-tallying motive'' by the time the mandatory week has also expired.
: The caveat, I know, is that saying "a week and ''a certain number of edits''", aluded to but unspecified, will have the some of the same uselessly-editing people chasing an arbitrarily high edit-tally in order to be 'ready' for the week finishing. But that kind of person is already of the wrong initial mindset. And people desperate to create new pages with perhaps little more than a week of having, in ''most other respects'', full editing rights (which is only marginally more than IPs like me have, as there only a few key places that I am prevented from editing) tend to find themselves likely to be contributing to the Category: Pages to Delete list (perhaps courtesy of more established editors).
: On balance, perhaps the page you mention should instead briefly contain a link to the existing FAQ section, via link text explaining that there ''are'' reasons, but "see here" for details, or similar non-specific wording. Anyone who hasn't read the FAQ could benefit from being aware that it exists. And if anything ever changes (rise or fall of the time or tally limits, even removal or addition of specific criteria), the FAQ will probably be sooner updated with the new details before anyone thinks to edit the 'error page' again (a particular page that long-established users will have rarely, if ever, seen). Assuming, of course, even that anyone can edit that level of page content right now. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.184.204|82.132.184.204]] 23:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t have time to read ip's comment but i definitely think the number shouldn't be so public, and i don’t see a need. i would support a small editnoce for letting users know they have to vaguely contribute more. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

== Some suggestions surrounding the use of the {{template|unsigned}} and {{template|unsigned ip}} templates. ==

;Where I just reference the {{template|unsigned}} template, there should also be an obvious extension of the same principle to the {{template|unsigned ip}} one as well.)

These are some interelated proposals, that could be implemented singly/incrementally (as desired and agreed upon). But might deserve doing in 'one go', at least the agreed upon elements. I'm just putting each bit into different subsections for isolated discussion (or ignoring) of the specific merits/otherwise of each. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
;TD;DR;s added, if you don't like the author's original verbosity. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

===Aesthetic/semantic change===
Issue: Not often, but sometimes, comments that are 'unsigned'-tagged (with the words "please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>") invokes retrospective use of <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> by those who take the words at face value. This ''can'' result in a (previously) 'unsigned' message having a later timestamp than its replies, or later 'top level' messages more immediately signed by their editors.

The more 'proper' way to replace an {{template|unsigned}} tag, for those that want to, would be to copy-paste a valid signature of the same type and replace the username(/IP) and datestamp as already (usually!) given in that initial pester-tag. But this is by no means made obvious in the above message.

Proposal: Wording to be changed to something like "in future, please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>", or "this comment should have been signed with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Or other wording, to be agreed upon, to make as snappy as the original ("was not signed with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"). The aim is to omit the implicit request to anachrnistically sign, however.

Overall effect: Any change to the template(s) will transclude to what would probably be an overwhelming majority of Talk pages (at a guess), plus other 'discussion' pages like these Portal ones. But there's no change in functionality or any individual page-updating, just the slightly different text when viewing in future.
*Note1: the {{template|unsigned}} template already takes a (rarely used) third parameter, which overwrites the "please sign..." message (i.e. <code><nowiki>{{unsigned|<username>|<timestamp>|<alternate message>}}</nowiki></code>, and it'd still be overwritten exactly the same wherever that has been applied.
*Note2: it also would not rewrite the text given of any originally "subst:"ed version of the template, but that's a completely different issue.

Justification: The need may be slight, but it's also a trivial tweak to implement (or even to trial) with a marginal but maybe useful long-term gain. But we'll need a proper discussion of what wording to move to, or else that it's not necessary. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

: Case in point {{diff|389535|the few edits that led up to here}}. Didn't really 'spoil' any actual chronology but shows how easily it is obeyed wrongly. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 18:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

;TL;DR;:Change the text from "please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>", slightly. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

===Additional templates to complement 'unsigned' ones===
Issue: Retrospective 'honest faking' of previously missing signatures is mildly awkward, as mentioned above. It's easy to get wrong, even easier to just not bother at all with it. (Either leave 'unsigned' or create the issue from the prior item.

Proposal: Complement the template usage <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''un''<nowiki>signed|<username>|<timestamp>}}</nowiki> with one that is <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''retro''<nowiki>signed|<username>|<timestamp>}}</nowiki>. Take the same parameters (except the 'alternate pester text') but return just the effective <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>-style format, now no longer with the 'please sign...'-type appended message.

There are a number of possible uses for this:

#''user1'' forgets to sign; ''user2'' spots this, invokes {{template|unsigned}} to it; ''user1'' '''acknowledges''' their goof, by simply changing the template-invocation of "unsigned" to "retrosigned" and the rendered page is left neater (any "whoops, my bad!" apologies can be given in the edit-comments, as unused third-parameter, etc, if they wish),
#''user1'' forgets to sign; ''user1'', themself, spots this (before anyone else) and applies this as easily as they would apply a {{template|unsigned}}. Slightly easier than 'honest faking' that involves the valid copypaste-method (again, with "whoops!, my bad!" opportunities, should they feel like it),
#''user1'' forgets to sign; ''user2'' spots this; knows that it's an oversight by a regular contributor who just slipped up, and there's no reason to make it a 'pester message'; so ''user2'' just goes straight to using Template:retrosigned, and doesn't bother with the 'pestering' or 'blaming' implications inherent in Template:unsigned),
#''user1'' forgot to sign ''...a decade ago or more!''; We know that (for example) User:Jeff is unlikely to benefit from being reminded/pestered/shamed, so it just seems better to let the more recent editor 'retrosign' any such example that gets discovered,
#or possibly, '''with care, ''and honesty'':''' someone, as ''newusername'', wishes to associate themselves with comments made by ''oldusername'', or even any given ''ip-address'' contrinution they previously used; that's something I wouldn't do myself, but I could see the appeal.
*Note1: my method (and that of others?) to edit in an 'unsigned'-tag is to copy the header info from the appropriate diff page's column, paste that text (containing datestamp and ID of contributor, together with some other textual cruft) as unsigned-tag parameters, rearrange edit ("timestamp" then "userid", with a few extra characters, becomes "|userid|timestamp" parameters), the same method would entirely work with the retrosigned version too.
**This, however, does not contain the "(UTC)" timezone info that <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> would give by default, so a similarly direct retroactive 'fake' will also lack this. Eagle-eyed readers might pick up on this. Which isn't an issue that concerns me. (One could always manually append " (UTC)" to the second-param, or after the template itself, even if I don't think it worth the bother.)
*Note2: It doesn't reproduce the appearance of anyone's custom signature, if they had one that should have been invoked. But also a trivial differemce, having resolved the whole issue of "no longer being unsigned".
**Should anyone ''really'' care to reproduce a custom/non-standard signature, they can still do so (on their behalf or someone else's). This is just the quick and easy

Justification: The idea is to allow for the 'tidying up' of the front-facing pages with less convoluted and more honest back-end edits. I don't expect, or want, anyone to retrospectively convert historic 'unsigned' tags just for the sake of it, but it adds a tool to the kit of anyone who is already prepared to 'correct' these things (their own, or others) in any given page-source.

I'd potentially use it for long-standing editor's lapses (the "Template:retrosigned" version), to feel less guilty about apparently nagging them about it. Or upon myself (the "Template:retrosigned ip" version), if I slipped up, to feel less guilty for going back in and 'honestly faking' what I had forgotten to sign, but (as noted above) there are several other applicable uses. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

;TL;DR;:Let there be "retrosigned" and "retrosigned ip" to be used where {{template|unsigned}} and {{template|unsigned ip}} are not (any longer) what is needed somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

===Tracking parameter underutilisation===
Issue: Early implementation, and sometimes more recent, of the {{template|unsigned}} template may use its most basic <code><nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki></code> form with ''no parameters given''. This gives an 'error', of sorts, due to having no official check-and-fallback upon not being given the username parameter. The error is visual only, and ''may'' have been allowed/forced to happen as a way to force its correction (though, at least until recently, it sees not to have done this as much as it should have).

Other times, perhaps immediately after the first parameter (contributor name) started to be routinely added, <code><nowiki>{{unsigned|username}}</nowiki></code> is used ''without the timestamp parameter'' that we now mostly take for granted.

(While the current third parameter, the 'alternate "pease..." text' is entirely an optional and a mostly unused feature, future changes may require/encourage further elements (perhaps 'named parameters') and leave our default "unsigned|username|timestamp" format lacking.)

I've been known to update any discovered 'bare bones'-unsigned formats, if I find any in pages I edit. Someone else seems to have adopted it as a task of its own, recently. This relies upon spotting the non-standard (or at least non-modern) usages.

Additionally, there ''is'' the in getting the rather ugly <code> -- [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''</code> 'error' for all no-param versions that exist.

Proposal: Firstly, just implement the 'catch' code upon the (lack of) first parameter. Make it 'fail cleanly', or at least less 'errorlike'. This is trivial to implement (i.e. <code><nowiki>{{{1|}}}</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki></code>). (I'd do that right now, if I could.)

Secondly, within the 'failover' half of the 'non-parameter' parsing, give it a Category: membership.

I have several possible suggestions for the style of Category membership:
# If the 'userID' isn't given, perhaps "Category:Unsigned no-UserID", if the 'timestamp' isn't given, "Category:Unsigned no-timestamp", and any others.
#* Note: the system could be extended to other templates, such as "Category:Incomplete no-reason" or perhaps "Category:Comic no-image", but that's not officially part of this suggestion.
# More simply, just have "Category:Unsigned-error", without specifying. (Or even "Category:Template-error" for far more generalised use.)
# Differently specific, use the category re-indexing (something like <code><nowiki>[[Category:Template-error|blah]]</nowiki></code>) for handy grouping-with-differentiation

Obviously, the appropriate category-page needs to be there to show any (and all) invocations. Similar to the [[:Category:Incomplete explanations]] one, etc, it would invite action to ''remove'' membership as examples are sorted.

Justification: This is a solution for 'meta-problems', really. Which 'category membership' option is used would define how much additional editing(/correcting) this might prompt for historic problems, as well as identifying improperly added new template-invocations. But it might be good to know exactly how wide or narrow a scope people might wish to apply to this, before going ahead and creating many new 'error' categories... one even just the single catch-all one. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
;TL;DR;:Make it easier to find 'incompletely implemented' templates (initially the Unsigned ones), so they can be fixed by anyone who would like to. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
----
This looks AI-generated. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:Really? Unless AIs are doing 'accidentally on purpose' typos, I think it just looks like someone with more ideas trying to burst out onto the page than they can easily (and accurately) summarise. And I'm also that type of person, so I can ''easily'' relate. There, but for the grace of <s>God</s> any-unspecific-generalised-universal-force-of-non-deterministic-fate goes I! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.237|82.132.245.237]] 18:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:Added a "''Too Long; Didn't Read;''" summary to each, as I understand the intents. ;) Now I'm wondering if there are any other things I might do that for! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

==Banning the phrase "WhatsApp"==
I've noticed that lately, much of our vandalism has come out of scamvertisements asking you to contact the scammers on WhatsApp. As I don't believe Randall has ever actually used WhatsApp, and as such it is unneeded, I feel we should just prevent any edits containing the word 'WhatsApp' from going through if the edit removes more than 90% of the page's byte count (let's be honest, nobody is going to delete that much from a page). --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 17:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
:The standard protection is to have [[user:theusaf]] to refine/expand what theusafBOT reacts to. Which it seems they occasionally do.
:I don't know whether they're paying attention, but I'd hope they'd pick up on such things. Given that it's the Feedback/etc comics that regularly get spammed like this, I'd hope they'd at least try to see what someone else reverted in leiu, and adapt accordingly, when they get the time.
:I don't know the various sets of exact criteria in use (some seem generally obvious enough, key patterns and keywords involved) and I think something to at least start with "blanked page and replaced with ...", on specific sets of pages, as an edit comment could be a good predictor with minimal false-positives. But I wouldn't want to explicitly suggest that (or your idea), lest the more attentive spammers made a trivial change to their future edit plans to by-pass it.
:...though I frankly think those responsible in this case don't care/think ''too'' much about it, it's more for all the other things I'd rather leave trivially unguessable how to get round. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.138|82.132.244.138]] 18:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
::I'll look into this. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 22:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Hey look, an admin that isn't Kynde! That's... actually the first time I've seen an admin that isn't Kynde in person. Cool! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 17:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I'm not super active in the discussions, but I occasionally edit and check that by bot is still working and not destroying anything. The whatsapp check has been added. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 05:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::*SKIBIDI-POP PA-DOOP TA-DA TAAAA!!!!* --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

==Adblock popup==
This wiki uses ads as a way to make money and keep the website up, and many people use adblockers (the absolute state of YT ads is insane). So, why don't we add one of those AdBlock popups that they have on some sites? Maybe the message could be:

{{Header text|So, about that AdBlock... 

explain xkcd uses ads to keep our server online. Please consider turning off your AdBlock so we can continue providing quality explanations. Thanks!}}

This would be an optional thing and easily closable, but it could provide at least a bit of extra revenue. Maybe we could also make a 'thank you' screen for people who do actually turn off their adblocker (it would only pop up once, after they turn off the AdBlock):

{{Header text|Thank you for turning off your adblocker!

Sincerely, the explain xkcd community.}}

What do you guys think? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Adblockers often also can block anti-adblock popups, but sure, go ahead. I guess you could also ask for donations to run the site. Same caveat applies. - an adblock user. [[User:None|None]] ([[User talk:None|talk]]) 20:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

== categories template ==

Hear me out: I've been doing a lot of category adding to mostly files that are uncategorized (BTW, we have a 11,000-12,000 backlog of pages-any help (or maybe a bot!) would be greatly appreciated). I think that we should make a template called Category or "cat" so that we can add categories faster. Of course, HotCat exists, but it only renders when there are already existing categories. For all the uncategorized files/pages, we would have to manually add it in. My strategy currently is moving my mouse to the edit button, clicking it, hit return to make a whitespace (for organization), hitting CTRL-V, moving my mouse to the "Save changes" button, and clicking it. And that's only for the really repetitive ones, like the comic images or Hoverboard or Time. Does anybody have any thoughts/objections to this? Of course, we would still need to edit, but it would be a lot easier than typing out <nowiki>[[Category:___]]</nowiki> IMHO. Additionally, I've studied up a bit of template code (Lua) and I've sort of fleshed out some code. I don't really know if it works, but if there's anybody more experienced feel free to look through it! I've included Pages to delete (ptd) and Helper comic images (hci) as examples. 

<code><nowiki>
{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|ptd|
[[Category:Pages to delete]]
}}

{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|hci|
{{#if:{{{2|}}}
| [[Category:Helper comic images ({{{2}}})]]
| [[Category:Helper comic images]]
}}
}}
</nowiki></code>

Thanks, --'''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 10:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:That's actually a good idea! So, it would be: <code><nowiki>{{cat|Helper comic images (1190)}}</nowiki></code>? That would be quite convenient. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::As written, I read it as...
::If "ptd" in the first spot, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{cat|ptd}}</nowiki></code>, that would give the Pages To Delete category.
::If "hci" in the first spot, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{cat|hci}}</nowiki></code>, then it would instead Helper Comic Images
::If "hci" in the first spot and a number in the second, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{cat|hci|1234}}</nowiki></code>, then it would instead give you Helper Comic Images (1234).
::There are maybe a few minor issues with it, as written. I'd use <code><nowiki>{{{1|}}}</nowiki></code>, for starters, and nest it so that any non-specified (including blank) param would give out an obvious mis-use error result. And you'd probably end up having <code><nowiki>{{cat|<whatever>}}</nowiki></code> sitting in your paste buffer (or would <code><nowiki>{{subst:cat|<whatever>}}</nowiki></code> be better?) exactly the same as you'd have had the basic Category, anyway.
::But I really wouldn't know where it sits in the [[1205: Is It Worth the Time?]] scale... Almost a "death by supernova neutrinos" issue, I suspect... ;) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
: I would use a switch instead of an if, like
:<code><nowiki><includeonly>[[Category:{{subst:#switch:{{{1}}}
| ptd = Pages to delete
| hci = Helper comic images {{subst:#if: {{{2|}}} | ({{{2}}}) }}
| {{{1|}}}
}}]]</includeonly></nowiki></code>
: It should be used with <nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki> because otherwise the category won't be able to be removed normally, but it technically works without it. The substs before the ifs make the resulting wikitext nicer, as otherwise when the overall template is used with <nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki>, it inserts the if statements directly. Consequently, it must be enclosed in includeonly's to prevent the substitution from occurring when the template is saved. It will also default to inserting the category with the name of the first argument, but it is longer to type using the template like this (<nowiki>{{subst:cat|All comics}}</nowiki>) than just typing the category directly (<nowiki>[[Category:All comics]]</nowiki>).
:If having an obvious error message is desired, you could replace the default case (the <code><nowiki>{{{1|}}}</nowiki></code>) with something like <code><nowiki>]] Invalid argument for [[Template:cat</nowiki></code>. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 05:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
All fo this sounds good! I don't have the time to look into this but Firestar233 is incredible with templates so i trust their code will work! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

== New Character Proposal for Kid Cueballs ==

I'm somewhat new to editing, though I've been using this wiki for some time now. And I've noticed that with comics such as 3178, whenever a kid is represented by Cueball the transcript says "a Cueball like kid" which is long and slightly annoying to read. So I propose giving the kid a name that's shorter and easier to use but still let's the reader know that a kid is being represented by Cueball: Kidball.

Thoughts? -- [[User:MikeTheNewGuy|MikeTheNewGuy]] ([[User talk:MikeTheNewGuy|talk]]) 13:25, 17 January 2026‎ (UTC)
: Hi, Mike; welcome to ExplainXKCD. BTW, I added your signature to your comment.
: But, on-topic: this sounds like an interesting idea. But, in your mind, is this "Kidball" always the same kid, rather than a type of kid? Would you expect that if you see "Kidball" in a new comic he'll behave the same way? If not, then I wouldn't add this name. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 13:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for adding my signature, I’m gonna have to remember to do that.
::What I had in mind with Kidball was that most of the time he’s the same kid (since most of the time he only appears in Miss Lenhart’s class, at least that’s where he’s been the majority of the times I’ve seen him), but is occasionally used to represent someone else; in the same way that Cueball appears to be the same person most of the time, but Randall occasionally uses him to represent someone else. And using “Kidball” in the explanations/transcripts might be more efficient than “a Cueball like kid”.
::And yes, if I saw him in a new comic, I would expect him to more or less behave the same way, unless it’s clear that he’s representing someone else.[[User:MikeTheNewGuy|MikeTheNewGuy]] ([[User talk:MikeTheNewGuy|talk]]) 18:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not sure; let's see what others think. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 18:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
:::I do think that he can and should be named, as he's very similar to [[Jill]], even if she has more personality than him. And Kidball is an amazing name! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I concur. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Me too. I'm not trusting myself with the actual page creation, so somebody else will need to create it. (sorry, just don't want to mess things up) --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]]''''' 22:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I've made them. See [[Kidball]] and [[:Category:Comics featuring Kidball]]. I've also changed the header of this thread for more clarity. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 01:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! Anyone up for populating it? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'll try to see if I can find the time (and motivation) to do so this week. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I just went through [[:Category:Comics featuring children]] and added about 9 to [[:Category:Comics featuring Kidball]]. We're getting there! [[User:Maxcodes|Maxcodes]] ([[User talk:Maxcodes|talk]]) 14:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Should comics with multiple Kidballs be placed in [[:Category:Multiple Cueballs]], or should a new category be created? [[User:Maxcodes|Maxcodes]] ([[User talk:Maxcodes|talk]]) 12:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: (First, I made it markup as a "visible category link", as you intended, rather than the invisible category membership that normally happens, hope you don't mind.)
:::: A further question is if a comic was Multiple Cueballs, by dint of having a Cueball ''and'' a now-IDed-as-Kidball, is it still Multiple Cueballs? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.239|82.132.239.239]] 13:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

:::: We've only just got to the point where we're naming this character Kidball; I'd say don't complicate the situation just yet. Too many categories makes the categories less useful. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 13:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: Children are rarely alone, normally being with other children and/or with one or one-or-more adults. So [[:Category:Comics featuring children]] covers Multiple Kidballs.
:::: I'd say that Multiple Cueballs is a notable 'common strangeness' that I think it's useful to continue note, for various reasons, but multiple non-Cueball characters (e.g. how [[1000]] has it, in-extremis) aren't worth all the various different character-specific 'multiple' categories. (And, yes, an adult Cueball and a Kidball should not be "Multiple Cueballs".) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Multiple Cueballs is usually for unusual cases where there isn't a different main character other than cueball. A bald kid and a bald adult are two different people. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
== Bring back mboxes! ==

[https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Mbox Mboxes] (do read that link) are message boxes that prompt editors to edit.
They say things such as, "'''Please help expand this page.'''"
However, they aren't on this wiki!

So, there are a few different templates resembling mboxes:
* {{template|notice}},
* {{template|notice2}},
* {{template|incomplete}}, and
* {{template|incomplete transcript}}
are just a few I've seen.

I just don't think this is the way! Also, I checked {{template|ambox}} and it said it was deleted. However, the proposal archive
isn't working and I can't check the reason. So I can't see why we aren't using them!

Here are a few arguments for mboxes:
* Mboxes can be different types, such as a notice or an alert, or even an incomplete notice, with a <code>type</code> attribute.
* Mboxes are <abbr title="Don't Repeat Yourself">DRY</abbr>, they're reusable.
* Mboxes are used on Wikipedia, and other sites I'm sure, so using them here will make it more comfortable for new editors coming from other sites such as Wikipedia.
* Using mboxes will make styling all alerts easier. (OK YES I ADMIT IT I WANT MY USER STYLES)

So why aren't we using them? I'm thinking that if this topic gets enough support, we can bring mboxes back, and
start transitioning old alerts to mbox variants.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. [[User:Maxcodes|Maxcodes]] ([[User talk:Maxcodes|talk]]) 14:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:The discussion, as you said, is in the archive: [[explain_xkcd_talk:Community_portal/Proposals#Notice_templates]]. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

== Transcripts ==

ATTENTION!

THIS:

Blah blah '''BLAH'''
''BLAH blah blah''
Wordssss…………

(Fill in blahs with your own words! Choose your own adventure fun!)

Is not a transcript!

I’ve had the impression that transcripts were for blind people (well, not ''just'' blind people) and making transcripts like the one above is only making things harder for people who may read aloud for blind people. Use things like [bold text] or [italics] or [comic in red text].

Idk wh6 I wrote this it just been bothering me. {{unsigned ip|2600:4040:52f7:9a00:cdb5:8d4d:4a6c:9917|16:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)}}
:I've always wondered who the transcripts are even for. Since both the comics and the transcripts are in the same medium, those who are blind wouldn't be able to see the transcript. I guess they could have it read to them, but it's still confusing. As far as I know, it's just a thing that very early editors used to do, and the tradition stuck. What's the reasoning behind the transcripts? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] (BLM)''''' 14:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::There exists the {{w|screen reader}}, which (at least until you start to trust AI, and there ''are'' undoubtely some good AI ATs out there that do this, these days, but are trained more to help with RL situations, like "what items are on the shop shelf I'm currently standing in front of?", not stick-figures and line-art...) can't do anything useful with the non-meta contents of an image but will happily speak out a transcript.
::It probably also helps, even if you don't need it spoken out for you, if you have a hankering of searching for a particular comic and you know some written words in it that might not ''necessarily'' be quoted verbatim in the Explanation. The text being all there in the Transcript section means you can get this site (or perhaps your caching search-engine of choice) to find it, without even relying on someone having decided to quote it directly elsewhere (which is often not good and/or necessary for an Explanation/Discussion/Trivia section contribution).
::If you're ''really'' lucky, you can even search for [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?search=%22office+chair%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go some random visual thing], as long as it's been mentioned, without relying upon it havng already had a thoroughly populated Category... That relies upon any useful example having the same exact wording in the Transcript (and/or Explanation), but it's better than if you don't have any Transcripts at all.
::There are other useful things, a bit less obvious. Yet perhaps you could argue the presence of the Transcript may not actually be that vital... I don't know if anyone here ''does'' even use a screen-reader (but is still interested in webcomics ...a very visual medium). And there are probably other ways to get the other other advantages of the Transcript. Perhaps we could just make sure ''everything'' currently Transcripted is added to the Explanation (though that seems wasteful, and might make the Explanation far ''less'' useful/readable, having to fight past the obligatory in-depth explanation of whether Cueball's arm is raised in a particular panel or not...). But currently the Transcript exists, for those that need (or like) it, and also anybody who doesn't can just ignore it.
::And unless you're going to fold ''all'' Transcripts into the rest of the Explanation, it seems rather strange to just stop creating them. Honestly, it's probably half the fun for some people. And even another 'First!'-brag for users to bag, without being actually so crass as to edit anything just to say "First!" ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I still do think that the people who need a screen reader would be interested in webcomics, although there probably exists a small population of people who are. Also, screen readers do not necessarily need to use AI in anything except for the voice. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not there. You may have missed a "not" or something in there somewhere. And screen-readers don't need ''any'' AI (as we would currently expect it), although doubtless the last few years development of LLM/GenerativeAIs has probably improved them from 'dumb phonology' (with quirks that users would have to get use to) to actually saying things more eloquently and even correctly voice non-homophonic homographs correctly...
::::But, anyway, there's the other reasons for a Transcript, even if I don't know if anyone does bother to use SRs. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I did, indeed, accidentally miss a 'not'. I DON'T think that those who need screen readers would be interested in webcomics. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::You'd be surprised. Just take a look at this discussion: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Sightless_readers_offended_by_the_.22It.27s_.27cause_you.27re_dumb.22_tagline. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::...I stand corrected. Also, [[2134: Too Much Talking|I have an opinion]] about that discussion after reading it. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 13:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

==New search algorithm?==
I was searching for a specific comic based on some words from the transcript. I was looking for [[2134: Too Much Talking]] and was searching "new opinions". INSTEAD of getting only results which had the phrase "new opinions", I got every comic which had the word 'new' or 'opinion' ANYWHERE in its explanation or transcript. I got over 100 hits and had to go through each preview individually, which was quite annoying and took far too long. I think there should be a function or option that you could turn on which makes it so, when you search "new opinions", it only displays pages with the search term and doesn't display anything which only contains a part of it. This happens every time I try to search. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
:You probably searched for (quote)<code>new opinions</code>(unquote), but you'll find that you'll get exactly what you wanted from (quote)<code>"new opinions"</code>(unquote) ''with'' the literal quotes.
:Like I did, by ending up on the page https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?search=%22new+opinions%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go just now.
:Note that searches just for (quote)<code>new</code>(unquote) ''or'' just for (quote)<code>opinions</code>(unquote) return many (thousands!) of matches. (quote)<code>new opinions</code>(unquote) 'only' seems to return 42 examples (now including this page?). This would include examples of "opinion new" ordering or even totally separate uses like if any a phrase like "...relying upon old opinions, rather than new facts..." was used. An ''actual'' example, is the following search-result snippet:
::..., with no real bearing on most peoples' lives, a lot of people have strong '''opinions''' on the topic. One on side, people argue that planets should have a consiste ...with such debates, to the point of damaging their relationship, is nothing '''new''' for this couple.
:I don't know how we'd even update/change the search-algorithm.
:And, note, it'd annoy those who are already used to what subtle ways there are to be either more or less finicky in a desired search. Searching for mention of "dog leads"? The (unquoted) search for "dog lead" might be better to find "he has a dog on a lead" without (normally) getting pages that say something like "a heavy element, like lead". A quoted-search, or an assumption that the user would have wanted a quoted-search, would miss the first example.
:There may be various other tricks and tips to search-formatting. The use of "+" before a particular term used to (on Google) force that as a required match, when it might have included "does not include..." on a page that contains every other word, just not that one. But this site doesn't seem to have the full (traditional) Google-Fu behaviour, that also included things like (quote)<code>-dog lead</code>(unquote) that could get you (mostly) the metal or connecting cable references to lead without so.much of the additional pet-restraint homonym, but then the Google algorithm has also changed so much over the years (Natural Language Processing and even more AI-based methods, rather than a more obvious codified 'markup' to one's search terms where it was the user's initial knowledge that more limited the search, intentinally or otherwise). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.115|82.132.238.115]] 16:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

== Excessive verbosity ==

Should we have a category and community portal link to it for explanations which are considered excessively verbose to the point of deteriorating their usefulness to the readers? [[Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1200:596A:A08E:FCB1:F968:D433|2603:800C:1200:596A:A08E:FCB1:F968:D433]] 20:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:Define excessive. (Also: Define insufficient.) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::He never even said "insufficient". He said that making a whole essay as a response (I'll link some examples below) is a waste of time because all the text is overwhelming and it becomes harder to pick out the important parts. By the way, he may be referring to you, as you tend to make very long responses (read: not necessarily a bad thing). 
::Some examples:
::*[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3231:_Lightning&curid=30046&diff=410387&oldid=410386 this edit by 81.179.199.253]
::*[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3232:_Countdown_Standard&curid=30051&diff=410328&oldid=410327 this edit by 81.179.199.253]
::*[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3231:_Lightning&curid=30046&diff=410157&oldid=410141 this edit by 82.132.238.12]
::--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 21:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Indeed. "Insufficient" was was seaid by me (IPv4), not IPv6. The point being that I'm not sure what amount of paring down would satisfy them, and what amount would be problematic to them.
:::If some information is there but looks superfluous to someone, they might remove it. If the information is not there but seems necessary, some other person might add it. And everyone has different ideas.
:::And in the two editing examples (and the example that wasn't me), they aren't even Explanation additions, which I'm sure (but will happily be corrected on) wasn't what the suggestion was about. Also, I make no apologies for being verbose enough to encopass a complicated issue, when I think it merits it, especially in Talk. There's also occasion to cut down/rationalise things (in Explanations), especially when multiple editors have added a concept here, an example there, a caveat at the end, etc, which might be best rewritten from scratch.
:::Face it, we who seek to "explain xkcd" have many things to say, whether we we're Nerd Sniped or just happen to think of something interesting but unmentioned. And those who wish xkcd to be explained may have many questions (even if they {{diff|410158|don't say what they are}}. Perhaps I personally err more on maintaining a verbosity (that can be skipped over by the impatient reader) rather than risk being too laconic (and leave out something that others would want/need to be said).
:::I consciously ''tried'' to convey all of what I've just said by just five words, you'll notice. Maybe ten words would have been better? [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::I did actually define it, plain as day! Excessive verbosity is "excessively verbose to the point of deteriorating [an explanation's] usefulness to the readers."
::Please I know this has been something of a pattern for years now, and I don't know who all is involved or how many, of course, but could you please try showing some restraint? For example, when you're typing a long paragraph and you're not 100% sure it would make the explanation clearer or more helpful in some concrete way, would you please consider posting it on the talk page and asking others whether they think it should be added, or at least ask others for help with brevity? [[Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1200:596A:FDFE:A728:80A:5859|2603:800C:1200:596A:FDFE:A728:80A:5859]] 01:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::They do have a point, IPv4. Many of your comments exceed 1,000 bytes in length, and most go above 500. 
:::1)''"If some information is there but looks superfluous to someone, they might remove it."'' Most people are probably going to be encouraged ''not'' to edit other people's comments (see [[User talk:42.book.addict#Editing other people's words?|here]]) 
:::2)''"In the two editing examples, they aren't even explanation additions..."'' That's precisely the point. Large additions to explanations are fine, if it all relates to the comic in some way. Large talk page replies, however, are much harder to navigate. 
:::3)''"Perhaps I personally err on maintaining a verbosity (that can be skipped over by the impatient reader) rather than risk being too laconic (and leave out something that others would want/need to be said)."'' The issue is that all the important things are sprinkled throughout your explanation and '''can't''' be skipped. 
:::If you do insist on being as verbose as you are, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a TL;DR? Just a thought.--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 13:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Ahoy there, from IPv4-land, again. I think you're misreading something. You're talking about Talk: comments being overlong. I'm not sure anyone else is.
::::The OP says "...for '''explanations''' which are considered excessively verbose..." (my emphasis added). Only in the more recent "...would you please consider posting it on the talk page and..." suggestion is OP mentioning Talk:, and that's as a suggestion of doing that ''instead'' of being wordy in the Explanation.
::::I also disagree that my two highlighted additions ({{diff|410387|this}} and {{diff|410328|this}}) are overlong. Not as short as they could be, but only significantly so by not saying things I wanted to say. Whether I not I should have, is another matter.
::::Not much more to add, that hasn't already been mentioned. So I won't. Have a nice day! [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::((Hi, I'm not the above IPv4, but I am someone you used as an example. And I could respond to DSB's comments (that edit-conflicted with me writing the following), as I think they are arguments directed against me too, but that would add ''another half hour or more of writing, down-editing, reviewing, adding back in things that I should ''not'' have edited out, etc. So, instead, I'm just prepending this little blurb. But it seems like I'm of a like mind/''modus operandi'' as the other protagonist here. Though was reluctant to jump in to comment on this 'suggestion' right from the start. But here I am now. Sorry!))
:::No, sorry. You're still being subjective there, as already said by someone else. If people add more information, it's generally because they think that such information is missing. Or responding to comments (or interpretations) from others who hadn't already 'got it'.
:::I absolutely don't mind if my attempts to explain something are re-edited to be less wordy than I might have left them, though. That's the nature of wiki-editing. And, if someone removes or wrongly paraphrases something (of mine, or anyone else), I reserve the right to go back and make it correct once more.
:::The exception is with Talk comments:
:::#Other than totally removing something that totally violates site policy, you do ''not'' remove or edit someone else's Talk contribution, beyond any peripheral formatting (e.g. adding a missing signature, correcting a clear indentation misalignment or, with very great care, making it more readable as far as newlines, bulletpoints, tabulation, etc, if the OA cocked that up) and ''never'' change the substantive text... even for spelling.
:::#Things written in Talk are not part of the Explanation and should not be assumed to be read by anyone reading the Explanation.
:::#They also need not be as 'perfect' as one might try to write in an Explanation, be they either more jokey, full of spelling/grammar errors. This is not the "voice of the site, for we are legion", but individually attributable (more or less) voices that may display confusion, authoritativeness, malapropriate terminology, the desire to say "FIRST!" and/or complaints about everyone else doing any or all the the other things.
:::#Should someone ''happen'' to make a cogent point in Talk, it almost never is suitable to just copypaste their exact words (less the signature - if there was any!) into the main Explanation (or even within the 'incomplete'-notification. If they thought it was ready for the Explanation, they'd have written it there, and probably used a different phrase (I write from experience, here!)
:::#And there is very little reason to go through the collaborative editing process on Talk, with multiple versions (and critiques) of the 'concept' text being left for everyone to see all the false starts and mis-steps and the like. When the ''very idea'' of the main Wiki page is that it's a collaborative editing place that gets refined to the best result it can be (or, maybe, just one of the 'least worst' ones), without all the messy re-versioning details on show (but still there in the History, for the curious).
:::(And I note that DSB highlit one of ''my'' Talk contributions, above, as an example of overloquaciousness... Strangely, one that {{diff|410161|looked somewhat appreciated}}, unless that was actually intended as sarcasm, but lacked sufficient markup to reveal that as its purpose. Yes, it was significantly longer than the first response (which I think was good, as far as it went), but I thought that *maybe* a few more details wouldn't go amiss. In leiu of possible further questions that might have occured without.)
:::So, no. I reject your request to 'discuss things in Talk, i advance' any time I think I might not be adding a perfectly cromulant smattering of knowledge. I know that I will never write laconicallg enough to please every reader, especially without making it so streamlined that someone else will have to request (or fulfill) further expansion to it.
:::"Should we have a category"? Maybe. What are you thinking? Some template-led thing, used either like the {{template|Actual citation needed}} or {{template|incomplete}} ones, or somewhere betwixt the two, in application/functionality? What if some adds an <code><nowiki>{{Excessive verbosity}}</nowiki></code> tag and someone disagrees enough to remove it again? Are we back to arguing it out in Talk (like we do already), and/or whole paragraphs being pre-emptively removed (like is done already), or are we supposed to stop doing that and instead populate the tag with 'reason=' information?
:::Not entirely sure what the "community portal link to it" is about, though. Adding a way to get to [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals#Excessive verbosity|this section]]? Or adding a link to each tagged example ''from'' this section?
:::The observation, in several ways, needs further explanation and elaboration (totally unintended, but I ''just'' realised how ironic that is!). Can I (and my fellow word-technicians, such as the prior responder) possibly shave off a word or two? Probably. But I personally try (amongst other editing issues) to address inconsistencies and gaps in information that I see have not yet been addressed. If someone wants to improve on what I add, within a comic page, then they can. Better something there, imperfect, than just lacking because of the possibility of some arbitrary word-/paragraph-limit being breached due to my 'interference'. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.33|82.132.236.33]] 14:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I created [[[[:Category:Excessive verbosity]]]] and mentioned it at the end of [[explain xkcd:Community portal]]. I have a plan to fill it with initially the 20-30 worst offending explanations using AI, but I need to run some experiments first. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:What actual criteria will assess the issue of "worst offending", can I ask? I ask this seriously, but I might as well tell you that I predict that you won't have a cogent answer. Especially if you're going for the same enumeration as that graph that was created. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::Whether the text is too verbose to serve the readers as a copyedit for brevity could. (By the way, did you know in the year 1600 the typical English written sentence had about 50 words?) [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 04:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2026-04-23T03:54:40Z

Liv2splain: /* Excessive verbosity */ reply

<noinclude>{{Community links}}

{|-
|valign="top" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big>Proposals</big></big>

Place for ideas and suggestions to improve the wiki's design and organization on general issues can be incubated for later submission for consensus discussion. Be sure to check whether your proposal has already been submitted. {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=(+post)}}
|}</noinclude>

==ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS==
<div class="plainlinks" style="background:#edf6ff; border:1px solid #a7d7f9; margin:1em auto 1em auto; width:100%; font-size: 120%; padding: 0.5ex; text-align: center;">Most of the discussions on this page have been archived. The archive is available at '''[[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals]]'''.</div>

== Removing unnecessary 3-comic categories? ==

I count eight categories on explainxkcd that satisfy the following properties: 1. They have only three comics in them. 2. They aren't really a comic series; they just feature or reference a comic theme. 3. They aren't Featuring some person or character. In short, they seem to have no real reason to exist. (They're [[:Category:Spice_Girls|t]][[:Category:Wind_turbine|h]]e[[:Category:Ender%27s_Game|s]]o[[:Category:FernGully|n]][[:Category:Giraffes|e]]s.) So my proposal: remove them. -[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 20:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
:In addition, there are [[:Category:Sketches|t]][[:Category:BSD|h]][[:Category:Emacs|i]][[:Category:Identity_Theft|r]][[:Category:Katamari_Damacy|t]][[:Category:Super_Bowl|e]][[:Category:The_Matrix|e]][[:Category:Tournament_bracket|n]][[:Category:Traffic_light| ]][[:Category:Trebuchet|m]][[:Category:Wingsuit|o]][[:Category:Euler_diagrams|r]][[:Category:Pedantic|e]] four-comic categories that also seem rather in need of deletion.
:: Shouldn't the community at least have some time to expand on these categories, in case they're currently incomplete? For example, [[:Category:The Matrix]] is on your list and now contains 7 strips, and [[:Category:Tournament bracket]] got its 5th entry after your post. Even if they're not, a theme category can save some typing in the search box (and is probably also cheaper in terms of server resources than all the searches it'll eliminate). [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 22:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
:::So what do you think the limit should be for categories? Should we create a category when two comics mention the same topic? Three? --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 16:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Three seems reasonable to me, and I could see a case being made for two. Categories aren't expensive. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

== New transcript ==

The transcripts in the comic pages are quite inconsistent, especially in the brackets where you have to describe what happens in the panels. If I understand correctly, the transcripts are for people to copy the text in the comic without having to type them out. If that's the case, then I think propose a new transcript. This transcript should have the comic with the words erased, and then the copy-pasteable words on top of that. Such a transcript would have no room for error, which would let anyone contribute to a seamless transcript.
:The aim of the transcript is to provide a text-only version of the comic that would allow someone who is visually impaired to use a text-to-speech converter to understand the comic and also in a machine readable format for searching (see the [[explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ#What_is_the_format_of_the_transcript_section?|Editor FAQ]]). Anything using mark-up, images or anything other than plain text will interfere with this and so should be avoided in the transcript. [[User:A(l)Chemist|AlChemist]] ([[User talk:A(l)Chemist|talk]]) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al

== Add title text and heading to transcript section ==

It has always bothered me that the transcript did not include the title text since it contributes so much to the humor of the comics. Also, it looks to me like the comic heading is sometimes included as part of the transcript and sometimes left out. I checked the previous proposals and did not see any discussion of these issues. Please consider having a policy going forward of including the heading and the title text within the transcript. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:To my understanding (and also others, see discussion directly above) one of the main points of the transcript is to make the comics searchable, the other is, to make it readable when images are not an option. In both cases the comic's name and the title text mentioned above and below the image should be sufficient. I personally think this convention is fine. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

::Pardon me -- (and, '''<big>''thanks'' for your patience</big>''') -- if this is too off-topic (/slash "boring") or [[wikt:TMI|TMI]] (see {{w|Information overload#Web accuracy}} e.g.), '''...OR''' if this should have been posted elsewhere ...instead of here.

::IMHO the term '''"title text"''' is a misnomer. I think the term is used to refer to the little (or, '''BIG!''') pop-up -- (kinda like what is sometimes called a <code>"tooltip"</code>, but ... aren't those usually pretty '''small?''') -- that appears when one "hovers" his mouse [pointer] over an XKCD cartoon. ...at least, according to '''the "Talk:" page section''' [[Template talk:comic#The template field called .22titletext.22]] which was added almost 3 years ago. I think that calling it a <code>"BONUS text"</code> would be even better than calling it a "caption". However, [to me], '''either one''' of those terms would make sense ''WAY'' more than calling it a '''"title text"''' ... for reasons which are stated in the [Template] "Talk:" page section mentioned (and ... '''LINKED TO''') above. '''<big>Any Comments? . . ''' *** Thanks! *** for listening!</big> --[[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] ([[User talk:Mike Schwartz|talk]]) 08:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Hi Mike, I see your point, and yes, something like "bonus text" might be a bit more descriptive. But FWIW, I think the reason it's called "title text" is because that's the text that appears in the <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_global_title.asp title]</code> attribute of the HTML <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.asp <img>]</code> tag of the comic's image on the xkcd.com site. For example, at https://xkcd.com/2364/, the code for the comic image looks like this:
<pre>
<img src="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation.png"
title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."
alt="Parity Conservation"
srcset="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation_2x.png 2x">
</pre>
:::In there, you can see the title text as <code>title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."</code> See [[title text|here]] for more explanation about that, and some discussions about it [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous#Common mistake|here]]. – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
::: While the current layout suits the first purpose (ease of search), I would argue that having the "title text" come before in the page layout, and in a completely different section, makes it fail the second (accessibility). Often the contents of the title text are a continuation of the humour in the strip, so it's about as useful as having the explanation ahead of the transcript as far as accessibility is concerned. My suggestion on this matter is to either a) move the transcript to the top of the content, maybe within a collapse section or b) not claim it for accessibility.
::: As for the secondary topic, I've seen it called "Author Text" before, as it is text by the author and most people won't care what the element attribute is named. [[Special:Contributions/64.114.211.89|64.114.211.89]] 06:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

== Wikipedia links. ==

I think the links to Wikipedia should have symbols, so it's not confusing which ones lead to other comic pages.

== It's time to remove the HTTPS lock icon ==

Explainxkcd should do the same thing that browser makers have done: treat HTTPS as the modern standard, and mark HTTP as the deviation instead.

Here are appropriate replacement icons:
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(32_bit).png
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(4_bit).gif
- [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

== New page for Randall's regular column in the New York Times ==
Randall Munroe has been writing and illustrating a monthly science column in the New York Times. I suggest a page in this Wiki, indexing those columns. For some reason the New York Times itself does not provide such an index. If they ever do add one, we would still have a topic article here, similar to the one we have for the What If blog, that could link to their index. --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
------
=== New York Times column: Good Question ===

'''Good Question''' is a more-or-less monthly column written and illustrated by '''[[Randall|Randall Munroe]]''' in the '''[https://www.nytimes.com/section/science Science section of the New York Times]''', beginning in November 2019. The columns give serious answers to science questions, in Munroe's inimitable style.

The New York Times website ordinarily requires registration, and its content is always protected by copyright. Most particularly it is ''not'' under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License] the way [[xkcd]] is. The good news: anyone can register for a free digital subscription to the New York Times, with access to 'recent' Science articles among some others, but outside of that only five articles per month. See [https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/info/help/freesearch.html Free Articles].

Unlike for many of their other regular columnists, the New York Times does not provide a clickable link either on the byline '''Randall Munroe''' or on the column title '''Good Question'''. The following tables are intended to correct that omission.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''by'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/science/what-makes-a-red-sky-at-night-and-at-morning.html What Makes a Red Sky at Night (and at Morning)]
| Randall Munroe
| Aug. 13, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/science/randall-munroe-moon.html If I Touched the Moon, What Would It Feel Like?]
| Randall Munroe
| Nov. 12, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2019/12/10/science/earth-size-mass.html Is Earth Getting Bigger Over Time?]
| Randall Munroe
| Dec. 10, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/science/human-running-speed-quadruped.html How Fast Can a Human Run?]
| Randall Munroe
| Jan. 21, 2020 / Feb. 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/science/worst-odor-smell-thioacetone.html What’s the World’s Worst Smell?]
| Randall Munroe
| Feb. 17, 2020 / Feb. 26, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2020/03/10/science/question-randall-munroe-bobsled-gravity.html What if Galileo Had Dropped Bobsleds From the Tower of Pisa?]
| Randall Munroe
| March 10, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/science/pulsar-xkcd-munroe-stars.html How’s the View From a Spinning Star?]
| Randall Munroe
| April 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/science/traffic-barrier-rice-krispies.html What’s the Sweetest, Crispiest Way to Stay Safe in a Car Crash?]
| Randall Munroe
| May 11, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/science/randall-munroe-question-eggs.html Can You Boil an Egg Too Long?]
| Randall Munroe
| June 9, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/neutrinos-snowball-randall-munroe.html Could You Make a Snowball of Neutrinos?]
| Randall Munroe
| July 7, 2020
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''about'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! LINK BY LINK
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26link.html This Is Funny Only if You Know Unix]
| Noam Cohen
| May 26, 2008
|-
! BITS
| [https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/techs-favorite-cartoonist-enters-mainstream-publishing/ Tech’s Favorite Cartoonist Enters Mainstream Publishing]
| Noam Cohen
| March 14, 2014
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/randall-munroe-the-creator-of-xkcd-explains-complexity-through-absurdity.html He’s Glad You Asked]
| Kenneth Chang
| Nov. 3, 2014
|-
! BOOKS
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/books/randall-munroe-explains-it-all-for-us.html Randall Munroe Explains It All for Us]
| Alexandra Alter
| Nov. 23, 2015
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/randall-munroe-xkcd-science-textbook.html Randall Munroe, XKCD Creator, Goes Back to High School]
| Kenneth Chang
| March 21, 2016
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/18/science/document-Munroepages.html Randall Munroe of ‘XKCD’ Explains the Human Body, Elevators and the Saturn 5]
| (Actual pages from '''{{w|Thing_Explainer|Thing Explainer}}''')
| March 21, 2016
|}
------

: Looks goods to me, you should probably make that an article of its own, maybe [[New York Times: Good Question]]? --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 22:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

: {{notice|I went and added the page, here: [[New York Times: Good Question]] --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 02:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)}}

== Bring back the {{rw}} template! please ==

Can someone restore the <nowiki>{{rw}}</nowiki> template? I insist on its existence. I further assure that it will be of much use. It was deleted by an admin. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 06:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:nm, did it myself. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 04:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

== Link to high-resolution images? ==

The wiki includes the "standard" resolution images, but would it be worth adding a link to the higher-resolution image on each page? It appears that this could be automated in at least a strong majority of cases: if the standard image is ''xyzzy.png'', the hi-res one is ''xyzzy'''_2x'''.png'' . [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
:Please stop adding this to the explanations. This is not needed. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
::The high-resolution image was quite useful in parsing the "Amelia's Farm Fresh Cookies" comic. I'm not convinced that the hi-res images are commonly known. I've been reading xkcd for about 7 years and hadn't heard about them until I stumbled across a mention of them in one of the Discussions here. What is the harm in having a one-line ''link'' here? -- not, I emphasize, the actual image, which would take up a great deal of space. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
:::I didn't know about the high-resolution images either. While it might be a bit repetitive to add a full sentence to every comic's explanation, I agree that having ''some'' easy way to link to the hi-res image on xkcd.com could be handy. For example, maybe a "hi-res" or "2x" button before the "Next >" button above the comic in [[Template:comic]]? That's a bit extreme, but I added an example template, derived from the existing [[Template:comic]], to demonstrate how that could work:
:::* Template: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Template:comic 2x test]]
:::* Demo: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Sandbox#2x comic template test]]
:::With those changes to the template, for all comics as of [[1084]] the "2x" button would automatically appear. (No need to go back and change all comics.) This assumes the images hosted on explainxkcd generally have the same filename as on xkcd.com, but there are optional parameters to override the filename or omit the "2x" button altogether for specific exceptions. I'm not suggesting we actually go ahead and implement this; but if there was enough interest, an admin would be needed anyway, to make the changes within [[Template:comic]], which is currently protected. – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
::::FWIW, I like this. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::My proposal is that a bot should add it automatically to the description of each comic image when available so that it does not take up space anywhere and is easily accessible. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 13:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Proposal to replace the top section with this... ==

I have come up with a new design for the top section of all community portals...
It’s located here... https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Sandbox&oldid=199882 — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
<hr/>
{|-
|valign="top" width="80%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big>Proposals</big></big>

Ideas to improve the wiki's design and organization can be added here. {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=(+post)}}

|valign="top" xalign="right" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app package settings blue.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Technical]][[File:Crystal Clear teamwork.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination]][[File:Mop.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests]][[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous]]
|}

== I made a template for welcoming new users. ==

{{Welcome}}
<hr/>
Any ideas? Suggestions? Objections? — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
: this is now in at the top of the Main Page --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::Why? This looks like a template intended for (newly created) UserPages. And it replaces interesting data from the frontpage with something not useful for casual visitors (or even non-casual lurkers). I'd undo this change in an instant if I had authority to do so. ((The template looks good, to clarify, just obviously not intended to be in that location.)) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.154|141.101.76.154]] 01:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:::[[User: Jeff|Jeff]] is the owner of explainxkcd you dingus. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

== comic groups ==

i think we should have a tech problems list of comics ( as there are quite a few)
:We already have a category for it. [[:Category:Cueball_Computer_Problems]]. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Archiving interactive comics? ==

Has the possibility of archiving interactive comics been discussed? Of course, users can view them on the original website, but it’d be nice to have a working backup of sorts, especially considering some of the interactive comics haven’t aged too well in terms of compatibility or support (e.g. Umwelt displays a blank page for me.)

It probably wouldn’t be possible to do so directly from mediawiki, but I’d be happy to experiment with cloning a few of them on another server, or as simple PHP pages that could be embedded, if it would help. Most of the interactive comics appear to be implemented mostly in client side JS anyways, so replicating them shouldn’t be too bad.

[[User:Tague|Tague]] ([[User talk:Tague|talk]]) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

== Replace head shots of characters in the wiki with these new and high quality head shots! ==

https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/n2u28r/i_took_head_shots_of_the_reccuring_characters_and/

These are not only upscaled, but are all squares and have all the features of the characters. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
:I think you should do it (because higher quality = better) :] [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
::There seemed to be no objections, so I went ahead and did it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 12:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

== Cleaning up [[Special:WantedTemplates|Special: Wanted Templates]] ==

I decided to take a look at the list of wanted templates. Imagine my surprise when I see that a lot of the templates wanted were mis-capitalizations or misspellings of existing templates. I hereby request permission to create redirect pages for some of the most popular errors.
I intend to do five, wait a week, and do another five as to not spam the wiki. I will not begin for a week, at which point I will only proceed if nobody has said no OR a moderator has said yes. May I proceed? [[User talk:Quillathe Siannodel|{)|(}]][[User:Quillathe_Siannodel|Quill]][[Special:Contributions/Quillathe_Siannodel|{)|(}]] 11:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

== Knit Cap ==
Sometimes Knit cap has long hair, sometimes short. Is Knit Cap meant to be a male character that sometimes has long hair, or is Knit Cap sometimes female? I want to clear this up before I finish editing [[1350: Lorenz]]. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:Hm, in the 'Enemy Pikachu used theft' scene in [[1350: Lorenz]], Knit Cap's hair looks merely slightly unkempt. From this, I will assume that Knit Cap just sometimes has long hair and is always male. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::Ok, the official transcripts say that Knit Cap is 'A guy in a knit cap'. I will take that to mean that Knit Cap is definitely male.
:::(Sorry for necroposting) Knit cap is shown to represent Randall's wife in the "X years" series, I assume that they are thusly female. {{unsigned|B for brain|15:07, 29 March 2026}}

== We still need to complete some explanations like this one: ==

I think should change the banner shown at the top of every page to show a comic that is still incomplete, like Hoverboard or something. [[User:Sure|Sure]] ([[User talk:Sure|talk]]) 21:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

== Update MediaWiki ==
explainxkcd is running MediaWiki 1.30.0, which reached end-of-life in June 2019. There are likely security issues because of this, so please update MediaWiki to the latest version (or LTS) using the instructions here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 19:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
:It seems like the mysql is too outdated for the upgrade [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
::Upgrade MySQL then[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu|talk]]) 03:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to contact an admin for this? I have no clue. [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 03:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== Allow Users to Edit their own talk page if not auto confimed ==

I can edit this page, but I can't create my own talk page! [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

== Upgrade Icons ==

The icons look quite old fashion (the ones on the sidebar and the ones above the editing text area), could they be replaced? [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
:They probably could be, but changing icons the moment they're not absolutely cutting-edge just means using new icons that are as easily edged-out (as tastes change yet again), meanwhile annoying those who prefered the first set and rather wouldn't see a revolving door of ever-evolving aesthetics.
:If I had a vote, I'd say keep the simple glyphs we're used to. If any are not totally obvious (perhaps some would not be, without the text captions) consider revising, but I think you'll get less agreement on what new images to use than that which would advocate the retention of the current ones.
:Alternately, it would definitely be on-theme to find Randall-drawn illustrations to replace them all. But the constraints of adapting (say) any particular stick-figure-world depiction of randonmess to ''meaningfully'' replace the current Random Page icon (at the same scale!) might be less than optimal.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

== Make searchbar not case-sensitive ==

The way the search bar is currently set, it only suggests comic links when what is being typed is capitalized ("Assigning Numbers" rather than "assigning numbers" for instance). Would be nice if we could make it not case-sensitive :D [[User:Char Latte49|Wielder of the Staple Gun]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 02:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:Good idea. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== Do not allow ordinary users to edit redirects that are just numbers ==

This overrides the default page you're sent to when you check a comic; e.g. recently a vandal edited the page entitled "2614" so it overrode the actual page, [[2614: 2]] on the main page.
:The problem would be when creating a new page and the overrides are needed... [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== ExplainXKCD discord (or other platform)? ==

I'm just saying if we had instant messages, pings etc. there would be a lot faster reaction to vandals.
The community portal is hard to get attention from and comments are all very well and good but conversations on Discord could get very quick response, and people could request edits, organise page re-writing etc.
Idk if we can get "official" backing by anyone high up but we could make one anyways?
:The problem with platforms like Discord or others is that we can't guarantee that everyone has access to them; on the wiki, anyone can edit, while some people may not have access to discord or such. A possible solution would be having a sort of service built into the wiki, but not sure how that might be done. Besides, this is a wiki, not an xkcd chat site. This is a good idea, though. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
::Anyone can create a discord account like anyone can create an account on this wiki. You don't even need a dedicated client/app as it can run in browser. Just like the wiki. Just my two cents. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Some user may not wish anyone to be able to contact them outside this wiki. You do not need an acount to edit this wiki... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== So, I got a question about transcripts. ==

A lot of comics show links (e.g.: all the ones with a drawing of wikipedia on it), and the transcripts don't really have a standard. In the transcript, should it be an actual link or just blue text or what? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.52|162.158.79.52]] 15:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:I'd say that if the linked thing (presuming it's a real linkable target!) is linked in the Explanation, it doesn't need to be (re)linked in the ostensibly flat-and-descriptive Transcript.
:And I know that some Transcripts are hypertext formatted to emulate the thing they are transcribed from (whether bolded, enbiggened, sub-/superscripted and and/or given the hue) but maybe ''primarily'' the "<code>[:Text that describes the text]</code>" should be explaining the details, in case the screen-reader (or text-searching algorithm grepping the Transcript text for "green text" or "superscript" instances can't quite work it out from the various style-tags that can be applied to that effect in so many an various ways.
:But this is IMO, I don't know if there's a specific policy about it, but it is how I've seen it vaguely applied... Not everywhere quite so consistently, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
::We try to keep links and explanations out of the transcript. The link and the explanation goes in the explanation section above. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== Use 2X Images ==

Apparently xkcd.com provides double-sized versions of almost every comic if you add '''_2x''' to the end of the image name. For instance,

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches.png

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches_2x.png

Since we are in 2022 and computers can load high-resolution images just fine, and they are easier to read, I propose that this website should use the provided double-sized images. Really, I think Randall ought to be doing this himself as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.18.107|172.68.18.107]] 12:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

:While I agree with using the higher quality images which are default on xkcd.com for many people, there has been [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Link_to_high-resolution_images.3F discussion] about this issue already. At the moment, the consensus seems to be to continue using the 'standard' size to 'use less space,' and instead link to the higher quality image on the image page. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

::I think I may have mentioned it on that link (or similar), but often when the 2x image is used (or even an unwise too wide image/unbreakable-line-of-content) the explainxkcd site cannot sensibly handle it and it forces the default 'page width' of stuff into a zoomed out narrower column to the left (including the margin-line normally inset a dozen or so pixels in from the right) so that browser-window can display the whole of this wide element.
::While "saving space" does apply to server resources and viewer download bandwidth/quotas (e.g.[https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection.png 53kb] vs [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection_2x.png 109kb]) may seem insignificant, screen-space can be badly hit by this.
::The motherlode xkcd site has code behind it to (usually?) serve the right image for the right displays, but explainxkcd isn't currently equipped to do the same choose-and-provide (which would need ''both'' images uploaded to it and a revised {{template|comic}} implementation, once we work out the method it could use). And I've never seen any case where the 'low quality' comic is conversely too small and narrow to appreciate (though occasionally the larger one reveals minor drawing details that have been obscured by the downscaling), just when the _2x one makes everything ''else'' too small.
::...this may not apply to everyone's browser implementation, but it definitely happens, and consistently, on my usual Chrome and/or Firefox on Windows and/or Android platforms (according to which system I happen to be on at the time). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 21:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
:::ExplainXKCD actually does have the capability to do this. For example, see [[1079:_United_Shapes]]. It generates multiple images, automatically choosing one based on screen size (similar to how xkcd.com does it). The bot could use the `imagesize` parameter to keep the image within the page's width by using the 'standard' image size. This does add a button labeled "click to enlarge," but if that is annoying, the comic template can be modified to hide that button if specified.
:::Here is what it might look like:
:::{{cot}}
{{User:Theusaf/Template:comic_2x
| number = 2647
| date = July 18, 2022
| title = Capri Suns
| image = capri_suns_2x.png
| titletext = [As security is dragging me away] "Come on, at least I didn't make the mistake in the other direction!"
| imagesize = 315x317px
| noexpand = true
}}
{{cob}}
:::which is clearer than the original comic page and the same size. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 05:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::::As specificaly implemented above, I certainly see no immediate problem (need to check across machines/devices), but I suspect that part of the mechanism here is the "imagesize = 315x317px", which seems like it would need (albeit by the page-create bot, algorithm8cally) to be tailored to the 'input' image, not always in this ratio). I'm not technically conversant with the nature of your back-end scripting and doubtless it's all possible (scripts can do almost anything... once you know that they (may) need to do them and rewritten them to catch all the contingencies ;) ), but I don't know know if that's something you've accounted for (e.g. test with a three/four-panel wide comic, or the Earth Temperature Timeline or whatever, and see if it can facilitate them all nicely). Not to mention that if theusafBOT goes offline, the manual-add instructions (as used prior to your replacing the prior functioning bot, for which I thank you) also need this extra step of user involvement to be done, whereas usually the fallback manual method needed little thought in this direction (or indeed however much carbon or silicon there is in the 'brain' involved) except for exceptional circumstances or those rare prior slip-ups by Randall.
::::I'm just going through the first obvious issue (to me), didn't mean to concentrate so many words on just this before even checking everything else! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 09:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::Basically, on the backend, the bot will fetch both the small and the large images, and measure the size of the small image, which is what it will use for the <code>imagesize</code>. I have actually used this system in the past for this bot, but was told to revert it due to the "click comic to enlarge" text. As for if the bot goes offline, there is no problem with falling back to the small image, and if editors want to, I can also provide instructions for using the large image. I'm mostly just waiting to see what others think about this. Are there any other problems to consider? —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

== I'm making an App that collects web comics ==

My original idea was to use the rss feed present on xkcd, and other webcomic websites, but now im starting to wonder if there was a way to make a better service, that allowed users to maybe look at older comics, and explanations and such as well, and thats how i happened to come across explainxkcd.com. The RSS Feed for this website, would be pretty helpful, if it were like reddit's but apparently, the rss feed is only maintained for the home page. I was wondering if you guys provided that data through an API or something? Also are there wikis for other famous comics like this one? Any other suggestions and ideas for the app are welcome 🙌🙌.

== Comics edited after their publication ==

many more comics have been changed than are in Category:Comics edited after their publication ! please add them (i already have done two i remember off the top of my head) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.223|172.70.134.223]] 12:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

== What if 2 book page creation ==
What if 2 has come out, but I don't know which page is to be created. There is already a comic under the same name. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

== Default to 3 Section Headings for Each Explanation: Non-Obvious Info, Recap, and Background Trivia ==

This is a proposal that all new comic explanations should, by default, have 3 Sections:

'''I. Explanation of the Non-Obvious''' (an actual explanation of the non-obvious elements of the comic for the average reader who might not understand the references/joke/relevant science)

'''II. Full Recap'''

'''III. Background Trivia'''

Most of us can agree that Category I is where the value of this website shines.

But today, all 3 of these categories of explanation are typically merged together, making it hard to find the Category I nuggets of goodness.

If we make these 3 section headings the default on every comic explanation, then this default will helpfully nudge editors to put the juiciest stuff up top, and not to clutter that section up with fluff or trivia.

——

As an example, take the recent comic #2878 about Astronomer Happiness and Supernova distance.

The main thing a lay reader would want to know — the Category I information — is…

..That the shape of the graph is probably a clever reference to a Light Curve, a type of supernova graph

..why astronomers like it when a supernova is close, and what happens when it gets too close

Everything else in the (currently) very wordy explanation gets in the way of the lay reader finding out these two things. It’s a bunch of Category II and Category III info that makes it hard to tease out the Category I info. It’s not BAD information, but it’s sandpaper. It’s friction slowing down the average reader.

Obviously I could go in and edit this particular comic, and I often do this kind of edit, but I think this issue pops up for most explanations, so I think changing the standard default interface will help everyone put their contribution into the right section.

In sum, my proposal would elevate Category I info to the top of each explanation, so instead of full recaps, we get right into the explanation that is going to be most efficiently illuminating for the average, non-expert reader, answering the most common questions.

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:In general (if I get dibs on the edit, or think I can legitimately re-edit/rearrange), I do try to go for "hook, line, sinker" format (i.e. establish the basics, relate that to what the comic shows, move on to any relevent speculations/extrapolations), very like your setup. Though it is often ''much'' too complicated (multi-layered, cross-disciplinary, etc, so that maybe it has to be interwoven 'mini explanations' per tabulated item) so I'm not sure how easy it would be to enforce a strict structure. I think there's merit to the principle, though. Assuming we can all agree what each comic needs focus on (apply that problem to the following proposal too!), as I've occasionally inserted a sort of "first you need to know <subject>" into an established cold-start explanation ("you see <foo>" only for a later editor to consider it more an afterthought and shuffle it to later ("you see <foo>" ... "<foo> is part of <subject>"), or variations on such layouts. Especially as different people have different ideas as to what's obvious/can be keyword-wikilinked and what needs more waffle to properly enlighten readers.
:Also, prosaic variation is a good thing. Too formulaic and it could be (whilst accurate) considered too robotic, so some leaway should really always be allowed as we collectively bash together a community interpretation and elaboration. Within communal guidelines, clearly. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.203|172.69.194.203]] 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== FAQ Style Editing should be the norm ==

Simply, we should experiment with more FAQ-style explanations.

We think of the top questions that the average reader might have about a comic, and we use those as bolded headers to explain the most curious/confusing/subtle/sciency parts of the comic.

The structure would be this (using a recent comic as an example)…

'''Q: Why did Randall use this shape of graph?'''
A: It’s likely a clever reference to a Light Curve, a similarly shaped graph in the study of supernovae that…

'''Q: Why do astronomers prefer it when supernovae are closer?'''
A: It makes it easier to glean information because…

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== sidebar revamp ==
I think that the sidebar looks plain and it should have a new design. It could be voted on by users [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 02:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:In leiu of you telling us what you think would be better, my starting vote is that I'm perfectly happy with that 'plain'. If it has the links I might need, why does it need a reskin? Or, worse, a functional revamp which probably removes the easy to use bits I was using already.
:...could you do a mock-up screenshot (or render equivalents directly in markup) of before/after side by side, at least? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.120|172.69.194.120]] 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My biggest problem is it doesn’t scroll down with you which can be a big pain [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
:Don't know about anyone else, but (when not on a desktop) I read this on a tablet, in landscape, with the effective window quite short (ratio of 1:2 with width, approaching 1:3.5 with already narrowed onscreen keyboard popped up) and if I'm scrolled to the top I see nothing beyond Browse Comics.
:If we assume separate scroll-control on the sidebar, setting Main Page at the top of browser pane gives What Links Here at the bottom. Now, I rarely use the next three links (or at least reach those pages using them), and separate scrolling wouldn't stop me even seeing the even lower Ad bit (but it ''would'' defeat the entire purpose of the Ad, in that position, whether or not I bother to notice it these days).
:So whatever missing about you propose, I'm betting it would impact me. Perhaps not negatively, but I've seen enough awful assumptions about my screen-area in the name of scroll-free design. Including the "give us permission (or not) to give you cookies" popovers where it appears the actual buttons to confirm (or deny, or go somewhere to review and customise, if they have that option) are beyond the bottom of my screen. I can temporarily rotate the screen, of course, but often I just back out and don't bother in those cases. I wouldn't be reticent to rotate this site, on occasion, but ''I'd really rather not have to'', if I can be so selfish and stick-in-the-mud, because websites just are not good to use (even temporarily) in narrow-portait mode. (What's worse is the websites that detect I'm on a mobile platform and redesign styles/placements on-the-fly to 'fit portrait view', assuming a vertical smartphone, ''regardless'' of my actual viewport orientation, etc.)
:So, please, a hard no from me. Notwithstanding that just as solidly "always browse in portrait" people might be overjoyed at changes that would give ''them'' a better site design. But that's a tricky circle to square (or letterbox!), and not what you were suggesting anyway (now we know what it is). I just want to plea that any changes be made with a very good idea of all the knock-on effects of 'improving' certain edge-cases, especially when it comes to yet other edge-cases. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.23|172.70.85.23]] 10:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
==New Logo and Banner Proposals==
:I have new logo and banner proposals for this site.
:They're made on Scratch, an all-ages block-based programming language, and are in the style of Right Click.
:Here they are!
:Logo proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png
:Banner proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banner_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.37|01:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)}}
::I can't see the xkcdicity of the logo, really. The banner is certainly flavourful in the right way (does it scale down well? ...is that what your use of Scratch is for, as opposed to standard static Photoshop/GIMP image editing?), but not sure it'll work better for the current top-left-of-page xkcd (with three xkcd figurses idling away, sat on the letters).
::Decent concept art for something else related, certainly. I could believe it was a Randall's-own interactive comic front-end of some kind (which would make sense of the "play button" that is the "►"-bit). Given that it's now in a programming system already, have you tried making a drag'n'click game of the idea of linking/looping the blue-trail, and animating the hanging-on characters? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.29|172.70.90.29]] 13:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::It's an arrow, not a play button. Get it right. {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.72|01:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)}}
::::Hold your horses... I was just trying to find a good reason for the whatever-it-is triangle to be there (gave the example of a 'play' button in my speculated usefulness of it). And it isn't really obviously any more of an arrow (c.f. "→"), either. I like your(?) banner's use of xkcd-figures, just not sure where the logo exhibits any form of being xkcd-related, except by the literal reading of it.
::::Perhaps if it were "xkcd font" (i.e. artfully composited from actual samples of Randall's ALLCAPS comic-writing) then it wouldn't matter so much, but I just wouldn't say it was any more on-brand than the current logo/etc. This being intended as constructive criticism, I hope you understand. And there's more opinions than mine, so maybe I've indeed just missed some point that ''everyone else'' (especially named-users) have already realised. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.5|172.70.86.5]] 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

== Regarding precision in the Unexplained popup ==

Would it be possible to add an extra decimal point for the sake of precision? Currently, it shows that 0% of comics are unexplained, which is (as of 13:21 UTC on March 27, 2024) incorrect. It's a small thing, but it's rather annoying. {{unsigned ip|162.158.158.233|13:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)}}
:With the current 2911 comics (give or take #404), 0.1% would be slightly under 3 comics. You'd need at least three before 0.1% appeared instead of the equally unuseful 0.0%.
:I'm of the "at least give everyone a week before you unilaterally declare it 'done'..." camp, so right now ''just'' the latest M/W/F comic incomplete would hover at a token 0.1%.
:(Actually, from two (0.06...% rounded up) to 4 (0.13...% rounded down. The good news is that it'll be almost seven years until two-rounded-up is insufficient, but also up to six-rounded-down is now "0.1%", if I've not goofed the carries/etc.)
:If going to the trouble of editing it to 1DP, make it 2DP with ''exactly'' the same editing effort..?
<blockquote>
<center>
''Welcome to the '''explain [[xkcd]]''' wiki!'' 
We have an explanation for all [[:Category:All comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:All comics|R}}-1}}''' xkcd comics]],

and only {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}}
({{#expr: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} / {{LATESTCOMIC}} * 100 round 2}}%) [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|are incomplete]]. Help us finish them!
</center>
</blockquote>
:(As of time of posting, the above says "only 2 (0.07%)". From 0.0687049...% rounded up to 2DP.)
:Though given that we're only going to go into the future,{{Citation needed}} I suggest we can state the flat-out number. It's not now really going to be as scarily huge as it might have been, as the actual percentage becomes generally less significant.
:And, for niceness, give it a grammatically/factually agreeable form:
<blockquote>
;General form:
:<code><nowiki>... and {{#ifeq:  | 0 | no |  }} comic{{#ifeq:  | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq:  | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...</nowiki></code>
;Zero cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 0 | 0 | no |  }} comic{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;One case (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 1 | 0 | no | 1 }} comic{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Multiple cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 42 | 0 | no | 42 }} comic{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Current cases (dynamic):
:... and {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 0 | none | {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} }} comic{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
</blockquote>
:...easy to replicate to get "Help us finish them!" to change (upon a zero-test truth) to "But they all might be improvable!". Or change the :Cat:Link to not even be a link when zero, with alternate phrasing dodged over to in order to avoid "no comics are incomplete" in other ways.
:I wrote the above for minimal nesting of overlapping conditions. You might prefer just to go with <code><nowiki>{{#ifeq: <count> | 0 | <whole "zero cases" version> | {{#ifeq: <count> | 1 | <whole "single case" version> | <whole "plurality of cases" version> }} }}</nowiki></code> - both approaches involve repetitions, but maybe this other one can be given a ''degree'' of wikimarkup-readability within each case, to take pity on future editors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.166|172.70.160.166]] 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

== Hear me out: What If? discussion page. ==

That's it. That's my idea. Go crazy, everyone. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. I would like a page on each What If entry. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::I've thought about this, over the years. Having 'a page' (rather than the summary table, in the [[what if? (blog)|overview page]], etc) does sound more completist than what we currently have but I then tend to hit the main ontological problem...
::In the What-Ifs, Randall takes a 'simple' question and then ''explains'' the consequences. At length. A 'comic page' structure (starting with how we'd deal with the multiple midpoint images, so we would stray far from using the {{template|comic}} introduction) that followed the header(image,etc)/explanation/transcript/(trivia)/included-comments format would be silly and have many parts inappropriate. Remove the Transcript, for starters. ''Or'' need a mini-Transcript for each 'illustrative' image. (e.g. ":[Black Hat:] What if we tried more power?", several times.)
::Is there an actual need to ''explain Randall's explanation..''? Because that's the only thing 'we' can do. Which is rather silly, and seems like it would take a small (entertainingly rambling) essay and expand it into a large (pedantically rambling) one.
::Or else we just straight-copy the What-If over here as a 'backup'-blag? Allowable, but not exactly a USP, there'll be Internet Archive and personal copies, should things go bad at Randall's end. Not really a noble-cause.
::My suggestion, as to how to cover the remaining "explanation gap" and provide a useful 'service' that's worthwhile maintaining, is ''maybe'' two What If? (Blag) sub-pages:
::#A place to collate all inter-text images (and hover-/title-texts), and Transcript them, for easy searching.
::#*e.g. when you know you want to refer to the "bomb to the eyeball" one (internally or for something external) but think you might not realise where you need to go to (the supernova neutrinos one!) just by scrolling a bare comic list.
::#*Or you'd like to see, at a glance, how many different places the Black Hat Try More Power running joke occurs.
::#*Even if you don't want to open the page itself (160+ 'comics' with say 5 images each, is an 800ish-image page, less rationalising 'repeats' to a single entry), it should at least give you a search result for "dry waterfall" that points you in the direction of the "Niagra Straw" one (and maybe others?).
::#*I could see these being brief Image/Titletext/Transcript/(optional explanatory context), but not enough material to make them separate comic-style-pages in their own right, right?
::#Something of the same 'collation page mechanism' for all those superscript-popup-'footnote' bits. Though I admit I'm not entirely sure for what purpose except that it just ''seems'' like a good "collection page" to maintain. Perhaps to offer updated onward-links if any of the originals suffer link-rot? (But then, that fate can occur to all non-popupped links, so maybe I've chosen the wrong thing to highlight.)
::...the question is, what do you want from it. Bear in mind that if you can creae pages here then you can set up what ''you'' think you'd like to see (e.g. for What-If#1, for starters) then get the community to assess it. Do it as a sub-page to your Userspace, maybe, as proof-of-concept.
::Just because it's not been seen as necessary so far, doesn't mean it's not necessary. I've thought about it a lot (not thst I'm in a position to inplement anything), but I've only decided that I don't see a need for a straight copy (others' views may differ on that) and not enough reason to pester for ''my'' 'ideas' to be fulfilled. But I aint 'in charge' here, and happily so. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.100|172.69.194.100]] 11:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::You make a fair point. He did already explain in great detail what would happen if [x] scenario happened. It just seems like it would be nice to have a page exclusively for discussing all the ''What If'' articles. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::::People just need to make a draft or two and see what happens. Be sure to link a draft here if one is created, I would like to help on it. "I want to learn more and explore this scenario further" is a valid feeling to have. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

== Randall-ify the Captcha ==

Let's have some fun: Is it feasible to replace the Captcha with something "xkcd-ish" like "click on Randall's work" with a mix of XKCD stuff and generic pictures. If not, how about a replacing it with a quiz like "which of the following IS [or IS NOT] xkcd character" with one obvious correct answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.75|172.68.26.75]] 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:are YOU able to create a CAPTCHA from scratch? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::Choose any images that contain user-made CAPTCHAs from the following selection. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::We could also make captchas based on most of [[:Category:CAPTCHA|these]]. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 02:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

== Incomplete Tag Vote ==

I think each comic's discussion page should have a section to vote on whether the explanation is complete or not. How long do you think the voting period should be?[[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Rather than a voting period, I think it would be ideal if people could "vote" on the completeness of an article at any time. As I go through all the old pages, I come across lots of pages that feel a little bit incomplete. It would be nice if we had a measurement of completion that wasn't binary. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 10:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Feel free to add the incomplete tag again. But don't forget to mention WHY (either in the tag or the discussion or both) you think it's incomplete. :) The tag is mainly there so you can have a list of "incomplete" comics. A comic is either on that list or it isn't. This is pretty much binary. As for voting: If I think an explanation is complete and it bothers me that it's flagged as not I generally juts make a comment in the discussion asking if someone has still something to add or actually knows WHY it's still incomplete. If there's no response after a few days I delete the tag. There's no need to make a voting out of this. And if somone strongly disagrees to you there's always the "Undo"-link ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Sometimes I just feel "this could use more detail," without specifically knowing what the detail would look like. This can be a problem when it's about explaining complicated science: the "completion" of a description of quantum mechanics that is readable by a novice, is very subjective. I am realizing the problem with the persistent voting idea tho: many people will vote something as "incomplete" but wouldn't come back to check on it later. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 12:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm more in the "less is more" camp. Most of my recent contributions to this wiki were deleting parts of bloated explanations: You don't need to explain quantum mechanics unless it's absolutely crucial for understanding the respective comic. Of course, if you are an expert in any given field, [[2501|it's hard to tell]] whether or not the current explanation is sufficient for a layperson and most contributors tend to write "too much". Which is totally fine. People like me take care of the "too much". ;) So, if you are an expert in quantum mechanics ignore "completed" comics about quantum mechanics. Surely you could contribute a lot to it but chances are high that most of it is unnecessary for the comic. Instead ask yourself if you need more information to understand that comic about biology. And if you do, add an incomplete and ask for that information ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:I've been here a long time, effectively back to when there were ''missing'' explanations (other than the "too new to have the barebones put in" ones, these days only seen when the current BOT is tardy or offline for some reason), and I've seen the Incomplete template change from the useful 'infill marker' to become a regular joke-tag of a similar nature to the Citation Needed. Yes, I agree that both of these (and the Because You're Dumb" tag) are perhaps a bit confusing for new users (like the one who badly edited out a link, just now, apparently thinking it was spam, because of the way it mentioned viagra), but I have grown to see them as community in-jokes (of various degrees of subtlety) that many people seem to appreciate under their current incarnations.
:We've recently removed the Main Page's more literal "there are # incomplete articles" announcement, which leaves the purpose of ''more accurately'' using the Incomplete tag a little less important. Apart from letting us dive into the (purported) list of Incomplete Explanations, one of the main ''serious'' purposes of the Incomplete tag is removed, leaving the now consistently employed purpose of doing a "Created by a THING OTHER THAN THE BOT" joke much more prominent.
:Really, all articles are potentially incomplete, still. Some more than others. Something big, like Hoverboard or Gravity, might truly have easter-eggs or subtle details as yet not properly commented upon, but there have been edits to ''double-digit'' comics recently which might be considered improvements. As such, there are really only two 'sensible' direct courses of action:
:#Completely remove the Incomplete tag, from use, as all pages are only ever as complete as the eye of any particular beholder, and the more recent pages are ''obviously'' incomplete by their being barely 15 minutes (or a day, or ''maybe'' a week) old. Or being so huge (or Time-like!) that they clearly still haven't been 'completely' documented. Maybe the BOT can add a Created By The Bot tag that gets wiped out by the first serious attempt at human editing, but if we wish to lose this part of our site culture so readily then why ever have it at all? A wikivote system is not really that accurate under these circumstances, for a number of reasons that I needn't explain, so go straight to assuming that any such 'vote' would pass, right from the off...
:#Embrace it for its THING OTHER THAN A BOT usage, alone. Don't be so eager to remove them just because you have no personal changes you'd wish to see. (Votes or not, there could always be another editor along in a minute who has, unlike the rest of you, picked up on an obscure visual pun rendered in what turns out to be hieroglyphs, or similar.) If we have to cull them (not a given!), then let it be an unstated rule (or a stated one?) that if there are more than (e.g.) half a dozen then the 'least amusing' may be removed by the first editor who wishes to express a critical opinion. Just the one at a time. No reinstating, no resurrection, no adding to old articles that never ever had a 'joke Incomplete' before, no entirely new joke (but you can refine what's there, to a degree), just a rolling (and not necessarily consecutive!) set of the "finest natjve explainxkcd wit". Or at least the least objectionable surviving examples of same.
:As a practical guide, the "reason why you think it is Incomplete element" could be entirely served by in-line tags (the "What?" and "Why?" and "Date?" things you might see elsewhere). Perhaps we could even do ''both'' things by instead having a "Complete" tag ''explicitly'' for BOT-REPLACEMENT-type tomfoolery (and tongue-in-cheekness about Completion, as we might currently be about Incometeness) from the off. That might confuse the newbods, of course. At least until it doesn't, and then they're not newbods anymore...
:The companion tag, for Incomplete Transcript, is presumably going to serve as it currently does (as a still serious hint as to actual Incompleteness), albeit that I've noticed a trend for the first editor of a brand new published comic to (possibly ''after'' doing the BOT-replacement joke, or after the editor who did ''only'' that) go straight in and enTranscript it (to varying degrees of accuracy and completion), whether or not they also then remove that specific tag-template at the same time. It seems that some people are more comfortable at providing a ''Transcript''ion-service than they are at establishing even the seed of an Explanation. (Or they only have enough time to do the latter, to the level of detail they wish to achieve in the moment open to them.)
:This is, of course, a cultural issue. All the above (from me) is just my own perception of practical aspects, notwithstanding those opinions already expressed before that (and elsewhere). I don't speak for everyone. And, as a perpetual IP, technically I should say that I don't speak for ''anyone'', either... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.140|172.70.160.140]] 14:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

::I like the idea of removing the Incomplete tag. What do you think? [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::I greatly approve of a <nowiki>{{what}}</nowiki> tag, as a Wikipedian that's actually really funny. I would want to keep the Incomplete tag, as I think it has purpose, even if it no longer represents a goal to achieve. I think this website will never reach 100.00% completeness and that is good, actually. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 14:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::Okay. If someone wants to they can just ignore the incomplete tags. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

== "As of <now>"... ==

What would be rather useful is an <code><nowiki>{{As of now}}</nowiki></code> template (or similar wording, and perhaps an "as of now"-cased alternative for use mid-sentence). There are many articles that will have words along the lines of "this has not yet happened, as of August 2024" or "this situation is continuing, as of August 2024". Every now and then, someone will come across one of these with an older date (perhaps only just out of date, perhaps years old) and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1858:_4th_of_July&curid=20285&diff=348082&oldid=315524 edit it accordingly]. You could also seek them all out, deliberately, with a bit of effort in the search-bar.

(Note that "as of" does not ''always'' need updating, there are non-dated examples such as in [[1074: Moon Landing#Trivia]], static transcript versions, like [[1071: Exoplanets#Transcript]] and other instances where the text "as of", with or without a date, really does not need to be changed... but sometimes is anyway by a well-meaning passer-by.)

Sometimes, this can be done along with another useful edit/update/revision that is spotted, or is just one of the revisions that some other need for change conveniently allows. But it seems a bit vague to rely upon occasional attention. Instead the template will implement something like "<code><nowiki>As of {{Monthyear}}</nowiki></code>" (here having to use <code><nowiki>{{#time:F Y}}</nowiki></code>, ..."As of {{#time:F Y}}"...), though there's the possibility that a parameter-mediated switch can let it alternatively become a to-the-day-level format option (at which point you could even implement/calcuate something like {{template|Yesterday}} would be) or just to the year-level. (Or add {{template|As of this year}}, {{template|As of this month}} and {{template|As of this day}} separately.)

This would negate the need to ''just'' poke and prod any article that happened to 'need' updating every month (or year, or possible day). And to deal with the possibility that some of these cases might actually need to be edited because "as of" does ''not'' now apply, include within it a {{:Category:As of}} membership, letting anyone who is interested keep an eye on these aggregated 'As of's, ready to jump in there and change it to some straight up "Up until <fixed date>" equivalent should any one of them actually no longer apply.

...obviously, I can't even begin to create the template page required, but I'd be happy to work on the exact wikimedia code required if anyone thinks it needs anything but the most basic transcluded formatting and doesn't know how. Open to discussion, and I'll tag on more if I happen to see that discussion developing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 18:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:As an addendum/change to my above suggestion, considering a simpler {{template|as of}} (and {{template|As of}}) which does ''no'' automagical continuous updating (just gives the "as of" literal on its own), but still guarantees "Category:As of" membership, so that it doesn't actively give wrong (new) date+circumstance relationships in the likes of [[1047: Approximations]]. In that, the several mentions of populations can safely stay as old years until someone rewrites the proposed value and assessment as well, but it still could be a task to pursue every new year after checking the Cat for likely comics needing a quick check'n'edit.

== “Grammar Bot” ==
I’m working on a python based bot written with the Pywiki library that aims to use the replace.py scripts to fix simple grammatical mistakes, e.g. correcting Citation needed placements, cleaning up extra spaces, etc. I will be posting the code in a few weeks after I finish it (I’m a bit busy at the moment with school and orchestra) so the entire community can view it. Any thoughts on the idea? Thanks. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:First thoughts are that there are going to be so many exceptions. I definitely agree with the idea of {{template|Citation needed}}s being made consistent (if only it weren't sometimes complicated{{Citation needed}}), as well as that of mysterious extra spaces. But that's not really grammatical. Punctuation, in the first case. I fear a full (or even fragmentary) grammar-checker is going to be complicated and give many false positives.
:At least at first, perhaps have it ''report'' what it thinks it has found. You may discover definite times that it isn't necessary and it would indeed create new errors.
:At the very least, run it with two checklists: One to do an automatic replace.py and one to just report. Start with the first list empty. Introduce potential ones to the latter, review all the reports carefully, ''then'' move any sensible-looking ones to former.
:And have it not fighting other bots (particularly theusafBOT), perhaps selected users (e.g. the likes of Kynde, and of course yourself) or indeed itself (if it makes a change that might inadvertently trigger another 'check') by excluding such changes for a recheck/rechange. Keep a record of what it changed, so that if anybody reverts/recorrects something that seems to have gone wrong it doesn't force it 'wrong' again. At the simplest, give a whole page a decent time-out and/or number of subsequent limits before it ''considers'' a new change. Implement from the start the option of a 'whitelist' (of pages it can ignore) or 'blacklist' (of rules it shouldn't apply, or at least actively apply, to a given page), so you can quickly manually add a throttle-down by simple config-file rather than have to add in a code-kludge when something obviously (in hindsight!) needs correcting about the way it works. And also maybe throttle it to have no more than one bot-edit per hour (while starting from scratch) to not swamp the system and give the rest of us time to assess any errors it has made (and its successes!) - you can unstick that throttle later, when you consider it tested with all its backlog of microcorrections.
:...there are a few other guidelines I would suggest, but the cautiousness already present in the above approaches might mean that they are left as not so important. Just consider what ''could'' go wrong before unleashing it on our world.
:And all power to your elbow, it is of course something we all might have considered (I know I have... not that I have the login for it, but what really stopped me was knowing how badly I could mess it up by getting just one detail wrong if I tried it).
:Among changes/alerts I would have it make would be cases of {{template|cn}}, {{template|citation needed}}, etc, instead of the 'main' template. Plus []-links to either wikipedia pages (most of them should be {{template|w}}-templated) or explainxkcd.com pages (most of them should be [[]]ed), although there are even then some exceptions. It'd also be nice if it can identify all Talk (and Community Portal) contributions that were not signed (more complex, as some may be after the fact, or have been after several years and further editings). I know how I'd do all this, or think I do (only upon starting to do it can I be sure I've actually theorised it correctly!), but I mention this mostly to point out how ''you'' might want to cautiously implement ''your'' ideas. HTH. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.15|172.70.86.15]] 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::you have made plenty of wonderful points that I clearly have not thought about-quite the critical oversight on my part. Is anyone interested in collaborating? I don’t think that my skills are good enough to satisfy all of those points. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 01:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::hello? Anybody? Please help… [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I believe this would be a great idea and also an incredibly complicated feat. Randall is no stranger to using weird punctuation in comics or misspelled words. I think it would be neat if it weren't automated and just reported errors it found so we could manually fix them, which would make its development much easier, but at that point it's very similar to a series of search queries for misspelled words, which we can already do. I have no coding skills so I'm not going to be of help. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
;Update
I have found a solution to fix most grammatical mistakes, I just need to make sure that it doesn’t correct character names like “Cueball”, not edit war with other bots, come up with a system to log the edits it makes so that it doesn’t revert again, and fix Citation needed templates. I already know how to make sure that it asks me before editing, so I want to create an account to test it out. Does anybody have ideas on what to name the bot? I don’t want to call it 42.book.addictBOT, since the username would be a bit clunky. ToriBOT could work, but I’m also open to any other names. Feel free to reply to this or reply to me on my talk page! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 20:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== "dark mode" ==
add dark mode [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:See [[User:Certified nqh/common.css]] or copy/paste my old [[User:42.book.addict/common.css|common.css]] page history into your common.css page: -42.book.addict [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.208|172.69.134.208]] 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::ha, thx tori, nqh's common.css works like a charm :) [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== reddit ==
Add reddit- Anonymous {{unsigned ip|172.71.214.80|08:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)}}
:You probably need to explain what you mean by that. Add reddit discussions to here? Add this site to reddit? Add some simple link to one from the other? Something else? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 13:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::>Add some simple link to one from the other?
::I have no idea what they meant either, but I hadn't thought of this! I could see the addition of a simple link to the comic template, like "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/{{PAGETITLE}" or "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/search/?q={{PAGETITLE}"
::I don't partecipate much in the r/xkcd subreddit, so i'm not sure if they have structured post titles or even if they posted all the comics, or if it's automated, but I think this could be cool! Some people will likely come from Reddit, so it would be a straightforward way for them to go back. Thoughts? {{unsigned|FaviFake|16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}

== viewer ==
i propose to add random page to comic viewer {{unsigned ip|172.71.150.14|00:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)}}
:There's already a "Random Page" link.
:If you mean (it's ambiguous!) a "Random Comic Page" link, then I'm not sure it's needed. There are so many "Comic pages" that it's a fairly good chance that you'll land on one of them for any given click, much more chance within two clicks. The likelihood of not getting a comic within ''three'' clicks will be tiny. Another way to do it is to just use the xkcd.com "Random" button, then (whichever comic you land on, which will be any but [[404]]), change the "xkcd.com" bit of the URL to "expxkcd.com" and... you end up here.
:If none of that really does what you want (especially if you mean something completely different from what I read it as), some more explanation would probably be appreciated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 01:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:If you want to make sure to land on all comics, you can go to "Special pages" on the sidebar, scroll down to "Random page in category", and enter "All comics". As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a way to automate this, so you have to keep inputting it manually. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 06:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::I think they meant a button on the {{tl|comic}} template. Would it be technically possible to make it such that it works exacly like the one on the official site? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::It ''should'' be a matter of using [[Special:RandomInCategory/All Comics]], I think, but doesn't seem to work when I try that exact attempt. Perhaps mediawiki or the mediawiki extension is not updated enough, or else I'm getting my wikisyntax slightly wrong.
:::Functionally, though, where the website has its Random button, we have our "go to the xkcd.com original", so more thought is needed before we just "add a button". If we do, we want it where the 'mothership' website does, but we still ought to have our details-and-link-to-original given, and I like it as a (faux) button.
::: Perhaps the {{template|comic}}, where it currently has header 'buttons':
[|<<] [Prev] [#9876 (Grune 32, 2525)] [Next] [>>|]
::: Needs to be changed to maybe:
[ #9876 (Grune 32, 2525) ]
[|<<] [Prev] [Random] [Next] [>>|]
:::...or equivalent. Haven't checked, but if it's a one-line table, can be easily made into a two-line one with colspan=3 (or 5?) in the right bit. If it's just centred, then it should come out Ok, in a simple way. But I'm not too keen on that change, really, and you'd need to actually have the Random->Comic link working first, ''anyway''. So I'm giving you my opinions and (slightly lacking) knowledge, in case that can at least make for the better outcome than either nothing (though not sure that's bad!) or some half-hearted ideas from elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.116|172.70.86.116]] 21:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::: Unless someone can figure out the requests made by the random in category, a workaround could be to use a (pseudo)random number generator (mediawiki has a [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Random_number template] on their website) to get a random number in the range of 1 - {{template|LATESTCOMIC}} and put in a link to that comic number using <nowiki>[[number]]</nowiki>.
:::: Note: There already is a "Random" template, but it was just using random page and was blanked by the person who made it [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 03:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Done|Done!!!}}  I tried that wikimedia templaete but couldn't figure out how to make it work. I did it using Special:Random, hoping there aren't too many non-comic pages. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::thanks! (i hav an account now) [[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 22:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No problem! There's also a special custom-designed navbar for the original comics: try clicking the "|<" button! (It's not complete yet, but i'm slowly finishing it!) --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

== Contentious Topics Template ==

I propose that we create a unified template to slap on contentious and possibly controversial comics, with a warning similar to the one I (and a couple other people added on) wrote in [[3073: Tariffs]]. Now, since I don’t know how to create a template and don’t understand how they work, this is my request for help. If you are available to help write it or have any tips for me, please contact me either in this thread or on my [[User talk:42.book.addict|talk page]]. Thanks! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:Hey, I just wanted to ask why you think a new template is needed. {{tl|notice2}} and {{tl|notice}} seem pretty solid. How would a new template differ from them? Btw, I switched the template in [[Talk:3073: Tariffs]] from {{tl|notice}} to {{tl|notice2}} so it's more like a warning, feel free to revert it if you prefer {{tl|notice}}. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::I read the idea (which I'm not too enamoured with, but wouldn't argue against either) as being to create a <code><nowiki>{{contentious}}</nowiki></code>-like template in its own right that (perhaps by using {{template|notice2}} within it) had a standard "This comic, and its explanation, covers a particularly contentious subject. Take even more care than usual when adding to or editing this Explanation/Talk Page" (or similar) text with it.
::It would probably also have the ability to add further (or alternate) info, by standard template parameters, in case you want to personalise it to the ''exact''nature of the contention.
::But, my reasons why I didn't volunteer my ideas immediately are:
::*It paints targets. Anybody who wants to can look at all "pages using the Contentious template" and then troll-bomb them ''specifically''
::*Looking at the Tariffs-comic warning, that's ''huge'', and catering for that with a "standard text + additional notes" would be awkward... if you really believe it should be so huge in the first place,
::*Just by being so obviously available, there'd be creep. "Hey, this comic talks disparagingly about Newton's belief in alchemy... Surely that needs a warning too!", or start off with "Well, nobody's warning about our attitude to the US Senate in this comic, so I can be disparaging" which then practically forces another contentious-tagging (''possibly'' useful, but maybe in making a bolt for the barn door only ''after'' the horse has already made its own bolt through it) as it gets toned-down/-back again.
::And, though I also imagined the Tariff comic ''would'' get some push-back (there was some minor bits, but we seem to have kept it mature enough, IMO), it seems to be quiet. Can't say for sure it would have been without the warning it now has, but it survived ok before that was added. Hence why I'm ''meh'' about the very proposal. Hard cases make hard laws, and hard situations may prompt hard solutions. But I'm dubious about the actual case for the need. (As you say, we have 'freeform' notice+notice2, and I haven't seen proof even that was necessary as it was used.)
::But it would be trivial to implement, give or take some fine-tuning. I'll say that as a positive for the idea. Even if we never really use it as much as we could. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.83|162.158.216.83]] 20:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Maybe it's a good thing that we have to craft one for each comic we want to tag; this makes sure only actually contentious comics get tagged. An upside to having a specific template is that we wouldn't need to type <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> every time, to avoid it displaying on the transcluded talk page.--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::mm. all of these are good points. now that i think about it, copy-pasting old warnings and tweaking them as needed is probably better than creating a new template. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

==Proposal for template page==
I was thinking that making a template page with instructions about what should and should not be included in which sections would make it easier for new editors to help. I have no idea how I would do this, though.[[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 11:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Which particular template? Many templates ''do'' contain instructions (from basic to rather thorough), and some common ones are also gone into in the FAQ page. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 20:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

== The newest stuff goes at top ==

I’ve been thinking the newest comments should go at top and replies are under the chose comment with a colon or more. Because every time someone makes a comment but not replying to you, you still get a message. So you only get notifications when someone replies to you. And the always get notifications not related to you is kind of annoying. [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:(Ah, so you found it, before I even wrote my directions down on how to get here.)
:Not sure this helps.
:Firstly: Top-posting is <s>the work of the Devil... burn it! Burn it all!</s> very hard to read.
::A: Because it's in totally the wrong order.
::Q: Why is Top Posting bad?
:(Yes, I know you want top-posting ''threads'' but retain bottom-posting ''thread replies'', but can you even imagine the chaos involved with people not properly realising what's top- and what's bottom-posted. Or inter-posted into an existing hierarchy? Not with this 'flatfile' structure, anyway.)
:Secondly: Does this count for headers (like <code>== The newest stuff goes at top ==</code>)? For 'no-colon' starter comments under a Discussion header? For both?
:Thirdly: what are we doing with all the past ''pages and pages'' of things that are (more or less..) consistently chronological and bottom-posted? To make new additions work, someone (and probably ''before'' the first commentator who wants to add a brand new one-line witicism to the top of any multi-year-idle page) has to go into every Discussion page (and more?) to reshuffle it all by whatever Top(ish)-Post Criteria are adopted.
:Fourthly: It wouldn't even change how frequently you get notifications. (Actually, it might make it worse, as inveterate bottom-posters have to be 'corrected' by the followers of the 'new rule', as well as for any actually idle pages that get redone as part of the "thirdly" point.) But I don't think Notifications are clever enough to imagine that a new section ''above'' what you previously wrote doesn't possibly interest your registered "watch and notify" intent upon any given page.
:I have a Fifthly and Sixthly, too, but I assume I've made my general opinion quite clear. (And I noted that this is not the only Community Portal edit you made, just before arriving here. Will check the other in a moment.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.142|172.68.229.142]] 06:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::Never mind. I don’t even need to read the whole thing to know it is complicated. To many words {{unsigned|Aprilfoolsupdate|07:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::Short version: It's complicated, confusing and troublesome to change to. And won't even solve your problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.197|172.70.160.197]] 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree with this message but disagree with the proposal. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

== By the Numbers ==

Greetings all,

So we all know that Randall numbers each XKCD comic with an ordinal number in a simple ascending sequence. I have become exceedingly intrigued by the particular properties of numbers now, especially their factors and primes. The most recent prime-numbered comic is [[3109]] and we'll soon see another one with [[3119]]. Does Randall ascribe any meaning or humor to the numbers that happen to appear as the posts play out? He certainly celebrates special dates! As a math-humor-based comic, there certainly must be jokes or surprises hidden therein. I'm not sure I've noticed any yet, though. [[386]] is certainly notorious, though doesn't seem to have a direct sort of Intel connection. [[42]] is unremarkable.

I once read a novel with an autistic protagonist, and each chapter was assigned a prime number. I will henceforth be on the lookout for interesting numerical happenstance as Randall continues to post! Anyone else? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 08:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

== Misc pages ==
I would like to propose the creation of an additional category for "miscellaneous pages" that aren't really comics, and which generally have a URL slug that's an English word or phrase instead of a number. This includes xkcd.com/YES and xkcd.com/NO, both of which currently have articles. It also includes these ones:

::''[Note by User:FaviFake: I organised this section and moved the links below]''

...and others as they are found or recovered. If only we could access the forum thread mentioned on the YES and NO pages! I was able to find a link to the thread here, but it's inaccessible. A
It's the one labeled "Hidden pages on xkcd": [https://web.archive.org/web/20170927200737/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=973b8a1dcd0a727a9177aa757108d4f6&start=250]. I was able to find the pages above via Reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/gixd96/what_are_all_the_hidden_pages_on_xkcd_that_you/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/35whzf/what/] --[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 00:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: I got into the forum page! [https://web.archive.org/web/20151206001238/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110093] We can now add these pages to the list:
[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 23:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

===Pages===
* http://xkcd.com/yes {{Done|Created: [[YES]]}}
** http://xkcd.com/no {{Done|Created: [[NO]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/nakedpictures {{Done|Created: [[nakedpictures]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/spiral {{Done|Created: [[spiral]]}}
**Likely a reference to [[1488: Flowcharts]] (Which links to Spiral) and [[2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral]], spirals above images of people and things

* http://xkcd.com/burlap {{Done|Created: [[Burlap]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/simplewriter {{Done|Created: [[Simple Writer]]}}
**Tool to Write Like [[Up Goer Five]] and [[Thing Explainer]]

* http://xkcd.com/tree_prank
**This is so funny

* http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html {{Done|Existing: [[Blue Eyes]]}}
** http://xkcd.com/solution.html, the solution to the problem (also found on [[Blue Eyes]]

* http://xkcd.com/morphs ([https://web.archive.org/web/20130313175333/http://xkcd.com:80/morphs/ archive only] — [https://web.archive.org/web/20060219184352/http://www.xkcd.com:80/morphs/ earlier version with more text])
**"Using several pieces of imaging software, including Photoshop and an image morphing program, I make composite photos of people."

* http://xkcd.com/chesscoaster
**"People playing chess on roller coasters, inspired by this comic:" image

* http://xkcd.com/kite
**"These are pictures I took by hanging cameras from kites, a hobby I've played with on and off over the years"

*https://xkcd.com/kite/kite_trick.jpg

* http://xkcd.com/dot {{Done|Created: [[dot]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/election ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141014075718/http://xkcd.com/election/ archive only])
**Used by randall for tracking elections, "it's the fastest analysis of the state of the race minute-by-minute".

* http://xkcd.com/event {{Done|Created: [[event]]}} (I still don't quite get it)
**There's an image on this site that a web browser fails to load, but when downloaded, Windows Photo Viewer can view the image.

* http://xkcd.com/now (redirect to [[1335: Now]])

* http://xkcd.com/plus {{Done|Created: [[plus]]}}

* http://xkcd.com/sub ([https://web.archive.org/web/20130111054027/http://xkcd.com/sub/ archive only]) — "The Sub Project", a long explanation of how Randall and others build submarines?

* http://xkcd.com/temp ([https://web.archive.org/web/20061219193846/http://www.xkcd.com/temp/ archive only])
**This is super interesting! It lists other sub-directories. [https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.xkcd.com/temp/* These are the ones that survived in the archive]:
**http://xkcd.com/temp/email.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20100305065807/http://xkcd.com/temp/email.txt archive only]) — Seems to be an email exchange between Randall and someone else?
**http://xkcd.com:80/temp/euphoria.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160401222138id_/http://xkcd.com:80/temp/euphoria.txt archive only]) — This says "<Sphere> Ok, that last Randall who said 'to clarify' was actually Randall, but pretty much none of the others were. Also no Sphere after this gets linked in chat a second time is actually Randall either. Randall is probably not there."
**https://xkcd.com/temp/evidenceofidentity.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20201118232320/https://xkcd.com/temp/evidenceofidentity.txt archive only]) — "[Randall] Hello to everyone who waited in line to say hi to me on my How To book tour and specifically mentioned this chat! [Sierra] Hello mr. probably not the real Randall :D [...]"
***The rest are all images:
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/baby_mop.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070127045748/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/baby_mop.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/darthswingset.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070127045624/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/darthswingset.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/deb6d13b50a581304bac385c463b09c1.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070225103228/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/deb6d13b50a581304bac385c463b09c1.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/Hacker%20Grave.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070213182708/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/Hacker%20Grave.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/hotornot.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20061219194445/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/hotornot.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/how_rumors_start_office.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070111000437/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/how_rumors_start_office.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/owned.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070228031547/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/owned.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/shark.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20061214082834/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/shark.jpg archive only])
**http://www.xkcd.com/temp/humor/you_cannot_pass.jpg ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070323001005/http://www.xkcd.com:80/temp/humor/you_cannot_pass.jpg archive only])

* http://xkcd.com/test ([https://web.archive.org/web/20170510061033/https://xkcd.com/test/ archive only])
**This appears identical to the regular xkcd.com homepage, it returns a 404 as of today

* http://xkcd.com/time (redirect to comic [[1190: Time]])

* http://xkcd.com/twitter (redirect to https://x.com/xkcd)

* http://xkcd.com/cyborg.txt
**Interesting script. According to [https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/05/20/gps-cyborg-implant/ an old blag article], it is "a short Python script that uses a USB GPS device under Linux to help with navigation. It doesn’t have maps or anything — it just gives distances and, while you’re moving, the direction to the destination (as in 'two o’clock'). It prints this info on the terminal and speaks it using speech synthesis."

* http://xkcd.com/channel.html ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141011002528/https://xkcd.com/channel.html archive only])
**I have no idea what this it. It's full of gibberish and Chinese text.

* http://xkcd.com/channel.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141014083026/http://xkcd.com/channel.txt archive only])
** Same as above, but it downloads the file to the PC.

* http://xkcd.com/me.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141014101900/http://xkcd.com:80/me.txt archive only])
**Only says "I am not in 1110.n01se.net anymore". [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/5tqrew/xkcd_secret_page/ Learn more in this Reddit thread], in this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvLxOVYeo5w YouTube video of how it used to work], and in the [https://github.com/n01se/1110 GitHub for 1110.n01se.net]. I'm assuming Randall wanted to say that anyone who tries to impersonate him in the future isn't him?

* http://xkcd.com/why.txt ([https://web.archive.org/web/20180729163548/https://xkcd.com/why.txt archive only])
**Contains 33 THOUSAND "why" questions. May be related to [[1256: Questions]]? Very interesting!

* http://xkcd.com/bitcoin {{Done|Existing: [[Bitcoin address]]}}
**There's also this one, which we have dissected on the page [[Bitcoin address]] (very interesting read!)

* http://holistic.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031258/http://holistic.xkcd.com/ archive only])
**"The XKCD Holistic Browser. Because we are all one. Type a web address and you'll be taken to one typed by someone else."

* https://aram.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20110816163403/http://aram.xkcd.com/ archive only])
**"This page is regenerated every day and may be NSFW. It shows a random result from a Google image search for IMG_????.jpg plus a random caption:" Seems it stopped working completely after a few years and got stuck one image&caption. Aram inspired [[Black Hat]], see his page for more.

* https://xkcd.com/verizon/ {{Done|Created: [[verizon]]}}

* http://mail.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120321204721/http://mail.xkcd.com/ archive only])
**Seems Randall set it up but never used it.

* https://xkcd.com/personal
**There was a /personal folder on xkcd, but it's been entirely wiped https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://xkcd.com/personal/*

*https://xkcd.com/ngram-charts/ {{Done|Created: [[ngram charts]]}}
**Still online, but the images are missing even in [https://web.archive.org/web/20120225171410/http://xkcd.com:80/ngram-charts the archive]. "Some of the interesting charts I've come across while using Google Books ngrams (which analyzes the frequency of word use in their scanned books corpus over time)"

* https://xkcd.com/color/rgb/
** https://xkcd.com/color/rgb.txt

* http://68.57.186.221:8080/ ([https://web.archive.org/web/20041024201125/http://68.57.186.221:8080/ archive only])
** xkcd.com redirected to this at some points during 2004, this capture is from October 24th of 2004 specifically.

* https://throw.xkcd.com (only available [https://web.archive.org/web/20200919232527/throw.xkcd.com/ in the archive])
**This was likely hacked, see [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/iw9jsg/throwxkcdcom/ this Reddit thread]: ''"I emailed the xkcd.com webmaster, it was a testing URL he forgot to shut down. It's fixed now."''

* https://c.xkcd.com
**This is mostly all for comics with dynamic content. There are many subpages, see [https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/j54lx3/does_anyone_know_what_cxkcdcom_is/ this reddit thread].
**https://c.xkcd.com/xb/feed
**http://c.xkcd.com/random/comic (redirects to random comic)
**https://c.xkcd.com/graph/1
**[https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/j54lx3/does_anyone_know_what_cxkcdcom_is/ There are others].

* https://static.xkcd.com/ (404, not in archive. [http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://static.xkcd.com/* archived subpages])
** http://static.xkcd.com/bl.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213845/http://static.xkcd.com/bl.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/br.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213841/http://static.xkcd.com/br.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/favicon.ico ([http://web.archive.org/web/20071208203917/http://static.xkcd.com/favicon.ico archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/general.css ([http://web.archive.org/web/20071208203917/http://static.xkcd.com/general.css archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/ieonly.css ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070911163429/http://static.xkcd.com/ieonly.css archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/ml.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213838/http://static.xkcd.com/ml.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/mr.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213832/http://static.xkcd.com/mr.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/tl.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213828/http://static.xkcd.com/tl.png archive only])
** http://static.xkcd.com/tr.png ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070912213835/http://static.xkcd.com/tr.png archive only])
** http://www.static.xkcd.com/robots.txt ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070501000000*/http://www.static.xkcd.com/robots.txt archive only])
** https://almamater.xkcd.com/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20130402215109/https://almamater.xkcd.com/ archive only])
:: https://almamater.xkcd.com/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20150209005631/https://almamater.xkcd.com/ archive only])
:: and errors out: https://almamater.xkcd.com/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20160528035956/https://almamater.xkcd.com/ archive only, errors out])
*** http://almamater.xkcd.com/best.csv ([http://web.archive.org/web/20130511122543/http://almamater.xkcd.com/best.csv archive only])
***See comic [[1193: Externalities]]
{{misc page}}
You can monitor the pages that are using this template (so the brand new webpage explanations) by going to [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:misc_page]]

===How should we treat them?===
This is great! I think we should first create an article for each of them, and after we have a few articles then we can start to figure out a good name for the category and answer some questions, like:

*Should we add a new parameter to the template for these non-comics? To do that, we would have to ask an admin to edit the {{tl|comic}} template to allow us to do that. We can ask Kynde, no big deal.

*Some pages, like [[Blue Eyes]] and [[Bitcoin address]] are already in other categories, like [[:Category:Extra comics]] and [[:Category:Design of xkcd.com]]. Should we use the existing categories, or add a new one? How do we distinguish between, for example, [[Blue Eyes]], [[Bitcoin address]], and [[YES]], which are all in theory "misc pages".

*Where should the new category be categorised?

*What title should we give for explanations of pages that don't have a name, like xkcd.com/dot? That one is just titled "xkcd.com/dot", unlike pages like Blue Eyes and [[YES]]. Would it become "dot", "Dot", something else? Should we keep it coherent or base ourselves solely on the rendered title on the official site?

I love the idea! I currently don't have time, but I will create these pages eventually. If anyone else wants to chime in, please do! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:"Unnumbered publications", or similar, could cover ''anything'' that wasn't xkcd.com/<digits>. Wouldn't cover replacements ([[2642: No One Was Hurt]] was originally 2642, for example), but that's a different class from deliberately off-series items. Also, given that often they are entirely non-image (the Yes and No), or straight text and multi-image (as per Blue Eyes, or other articles with a WhatIf-ish feel to them), I think calling them "comic"s is stretching the term.
:Though "miscellaneous pages" sort of covers this, I've a feeling that there's at least one... 'entity'... that is built upon multiple actual 'pages', but the list of candidates above doesn't contain any that look like they're what I'm vaguely thinking of. (Neither was it anything like the xkcd survey, or other interactive (numbered) comics, but maybe I'll bring it back to mind sooner rather than later.)
:As to the use of {{template|comic}}, I think we could spring to a (modified, 'inspired-by') template specifically for all these no-number/off-sequence explanation headers. Either explicit "prev=" and "next=" (per comic, ''could'' get quite mixed up if not kept uncontradictory) or a "position=" which could help maintain a list (and, from that, an auto-generated first/prev/next/last 'page ring') without having to subvert expectations of fitting in with the normal [[Template:LATESTCOMIC]] system.
:With the Comic template already equipped to deal with "no-number 'comics'", there wouldn't (in the first instance) be much work needed to "decomic" the new copy, with the exact method of resequencing (if desired) as a parallel series being the biggest question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what the last sentenc means, but I like the idea of a new template! However, I don't think we should call the category "Unnumbered publications". Isn't that just [[:Category:Extra comics]] but without comics [[Disappearing Sunday Update]] and [[No One Was Hurt]]? We should establish a criterion to add pages to this category and then figure out a name i think. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

On this subject, is there any reason why it's [[YES]] and [[NO]] (currently the valid links) rather than [[Yes]] and [[No]] / [[yes]] and [[no]] (currently invalid links)? And I don't mean "why aren't there redirects?", which I don't even think is the right way of resolving this, but what was the thinking? (Which then didn't result in [[DOT]], etc, so there's ''definitely'' some inconsistency, one way or another.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 21:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see inconsistencies. The name of the browser tab for the yes page is "YES" by Randall, same for NO. Instead, the page for [[dot]] is called "xkcd.com/dot/". We could use that, but that's likely not what Randall intended and might have been a coding oversight. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've created the {{tl|misc page}} template for these pages and removed the incomplete template until we reach consensus on what to do with them. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 14:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Ahem, I'd like to remind everyone that they can feel free to comment on the best way to manage these. Or if they should be included in the wiki at all. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What if we just create a subcategory for These. It is xkcd so it should belong here. Should not be in the random queue but something like a button to get to these. {{unsigned ip|216.125.50.226|16:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)}}

=== New page "Spiral" ===

I found a new page at [http://xkcd.com/spiral xkcd/spiral]. what should I do? Thanks!
This is my first post, sorry it's not formatted correctly. -- [[Special:Contributions/73.169.159.188|73.169.159.188]] 00:27, 12 October 2025‎

: Welcome. Good find! Any suggestions? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 01:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
::I've moved this over to Coordination and uploaded all images on spiral. I'll be making the page soon. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 05:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Moving to correct location where we're discussing these pages. More discussion about how we should treat them is welcome! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:Category:Extra pages]] ===
I've created a category called Extra pages for all of these pages. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
:So, right now we have "Category:Extra pages" ''and'' "Category:Extra comics". Some ''are'' unnumbered comics (plus at least one "was a number, then replaced") and some are 'merely' pages (with possible a fuzzy line between for 'pages' that show images-that-aren't-comics), perhaps we should be consistent between which are which, and how they relate to 'standard' numbered comics.
:For example, being an Extra Comics was (officially, but you could also manually add it) initiated by the "extra=yes" param to {{template|comic}}. This also (theoretically, problems with the randomness backend aside) adds them to the Random Comics link-choice, ''without'' adding them to the Comic List numbers (such that it states "we have #### comics", where #### should not be different from the latest comic number, as recently established).
:Perhaps:
:*Make the comic template accept "extra=comic" or "extra=page", instead of "extra=yes".
:**Perhaps "extra=yes" 'remains' to default to one or the other? ...nah, just make sure all the current "=yes" ones are assigned beforehand.
:**"extra=no" just defaults back to behaviour without any "extra=" at all, of course, pretty much as currently.
:*Each of these new distinctions assigns to the 'Extra' category that fits it, but keeps it out of the All (numbered) Comics list, as being not numbered (and some not being 'comics')
:*Either ''just'' keep Extra Comics feeding to the Random Comic list (All Comics+Extra Comics, as we've painstakingly set it up to do, recently) or ''also'' include Extra Pages (it being AC+EC+EP in the Special:Random target list/whatever). TBD, depends upon whether you like a strictly "non-comic page" potentially popping up as a 'treat' for people.
:...that's all a ''little'' extra work. Some of which I could probably do right now (though maybe some pages are Protected against my input, haven't checked), but I think this needs discussion before doing any actual refining of the current setup.
:Might have been better to have proposed and discussed the Extra Pages details before starting that, too, but I'm happy to use this setup as a stepping stone given that it's been done already. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.89|82.132.244.89]] 14:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

=== Update on ngrams ===

The images on the ngrams page appear to be generated dynamically. The original URLs are broken, but can be restored by changing "/chart" to "/graph". This doesn't fix the HTML page, but it does render each of the 58 URLs accessible - see below.

All graphs default to a corpus from 2009. Note that some graphs, such as the one noted "cherry picking" below, look very different using a more recent corpus.

* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=President+Lincoln%2CPresident+Roosevelt%2CPresident+Kennedy%2CPresident+Johnson%2CPresident+Nixon%2CPresident+Reagan%2CPresident+Bush&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fuck&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Great+War%2Cthe+World+War%2CWorld+War+I&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=2
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=christian%2Cchristianity&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=aliens%2C+predators&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=explosion+in+popularity&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=blue+line&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=upward+trend&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gay%2Clesbian%2Cbisexual&year_start=1940&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Leviticus+18%2Cturn+the+other+cheek&year_start=1960&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3 (cherry-picking)
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vegetarian&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=drunk&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=television%2C+tuberculosis&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=love%2Chope%2Cfaith%2C+sex&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hope&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=entomology%2Cetymology&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carriage%2Ccar%2Cautomobile&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=irregardless%2Cregardlessly%2Cunregarding&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a+bird+in+the+hand%2Clive+by+the+sword%2Clook+before+you+leap%2Ca+penny+saved&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=war&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Muslim%2CMoslem%2CMoslim%2CMussulman%2C+Moslam&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Empire%2C+empire&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decline%2Cprogress&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=progress&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=6&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=war&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Rapture&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=history%2Cpast%2Cfuture&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Star+Wars%2C+Star+Trek&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Jesus+Christ&year_start=1720&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=President&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=tyranny&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=power+to+the+people&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=flag&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=4&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=end+of+the+world&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Bible+study&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=God+bless+America&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=merry+Christmas%2Chappy+holidays&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Space&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=old+fashioned&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sword%2C+gun&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pirate&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ayn+Rand&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Marx&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Marx%2C+Marxy%2C+Marxist%2C+Marxiest&year_start=1850&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=communism%2Ccommunist%2Csocialist&year_start=1830&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Russia%2C+USSR&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=savior%2CSavior&year_start=1720&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=trend&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=girly&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=restroom%2C+bathroom%2C+toilet&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pursuit+of+happiness&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=telechart%2Ctelephone%2Ctelegram%2Ctelevision%2Cradio%2Cinternet&year_start=1840&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=king&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=science&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=decade&year_start=1780&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=thousand&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hundred%2Cthousand%2Cmillion%2Cbillion%2Ctrillion&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
* http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=jillion%2Czillion%2Cbazillion%2Ckazillion&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 16:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

==Visual Editor?==
I, being a nerd in high school, edit on more than just this wiki. For example, I edit on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, the default editing mode is a visual editor, which automatically converts your wikitext into the final product in real time. It's useful on many levels, and would save all of us a lot of time (I've spent at least 2 hours total fixing broken wikitext). I feel that using this tool would increase overall productivity in the wiki, and probably lessen the amount of people who are intimidated when attempting to edit, allowing more people to join and contribute to the community. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 22:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

:Good luck telling that to jeff! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 12:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

::Ugh. Well, he's gotta come back eventually, right? He's paying for the domain, after all. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 16:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

:::Or maybe he just forgot and we actually don't want him to come back. Who knows! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

::::Name one person who wants Jeff to just not come back. Either way, I want him back, and I suggested this just in case. This would also be really cool for me, as I joined after jeff's last known user page edit in 2018. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 23:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::Jeez that was a joke. Ofc I want him back lol. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 20:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::still no response from Jeff or any of his friends on: Reddit, X/Twitter; GitHub; Bluesky; Mastodon; and email. Oh, and I asked some person on YouTube with the username lcarsos (as in the other 'crat on here) but I think that he deleted my comment on his video (multiple times). (just a little fyi) '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Does he even remember this? Maybe they all got struck by lightning at the same time while calling someone who just sneezed and saying 'bless you'. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

==Unicode emoji support==
This suggestion was made in response to the discussion above. I was completely unable to realize that FaviFake was joking. I feel that Unicode emojis would drastically improve the wiki and allow for more detailed conveyance of thoughts and feelings, and prevent catastrophic misunderstandings not unlike the one above. Other people have insulted me due to the fact that I was unable to convey enough emotion. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa'al|'''''My life choices''''']] 17:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:Text-only media, like this, always has the issue of not being understood, but if someone forgets (or consciously declines) to put a "/s" or ";)" in there, they'll probably also not add an emoji.
:Of course, one person's very dry humour might go so far over the head of another person that not even a strong hint helps, whereas another's sense of fun might be so obvious that gilding the lilly even sends the ''wrong'' message about it. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 20:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
: I don't understand your suggestion. 😕 The site appears to allow such emojis to be included; I just copied and pasted. There's also the HTML entity option, e.g. <code>&#128533;</code>. 😕 Or are you asking that the site include code to make it easier to insert emojis? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 16:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

== Custom User-based Signature Template ==

DollarStoreBa'al and I came up with a pretty interesting idea: a template called "sig" that can hold the signatures of other users. This is to allow users to have signatures longer than 255 characters, which is the hard limit set by MediaWiki. To call the template, we can use <nowiki>{{sig|User:XYZ}}</nowiki> and encode the template with wikitext so that each user's signature can be pasted in without confusion. To make things even easier, users can adjust their signatures in Preferences to call this template so that the 4 tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) can still be employed. If enough positive feedback is received, I would love to work on it with the community. If anybody is interested in helping out, please mention it! The template could also function as a signature museum, where you can view other user's custom signatures and get inspiration. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:Update. I have found another solution. By creating a sig page, you can call <nowiki>{{User:XYZ/sig}}</nowiki>, which enables you to literally copy-paste whatever's in that page into another page. This was first discovered, I believe, by [[User:Omega/sig|User:Omega]]. I don't believe we need the template anymore, but the signature museum would still be cool! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::Not quite sure what it will do. Seems to me that for instance you and [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] already have very advanced signatures (using Dollar's here as another example). My own preferences would be a normal signature, where it is easy to see who has made the comment and where the links takes me... But since you can already make this complicated signatures anyway, I'm not as such opposed to the idea. Am I correct in assuming I need to do something in order for this to be possible as the only active admin at the moment? As I will not come by here regularly, then let me know when there has been some relevant activity. Not just a reply to these questions here. But once some other than you two has chimed in. Else I might forget to come back to look! (I wrote this and then had an edit conflict with 42. So maybe this is not relevant anymore? But I will post it now none the less. But this was as a reply to the first proposal) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi Kynde. Yes, I believe that we don't need your assistance anymore. The need for a template is erased by the existence of /sig pages, and we can create a museum by ourselves. Thanks for trying and chiming in, though! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I do believe the template would work fine... that way it wouldn't show the full wikitext of the signature. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 19:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
bad bad bad bad idea, the sig character limit is 255 for a reason, see {{w|WP:SIGLENGTH}}.

a sig template is an even worse idea, because every instance of it will call #ifexist, an [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgExpensiveParserFunctionLimit expensive parser function]. these make a page take even longer to load, which this wiki definitely does not need. also, expensive fucntions are capped at 500, so you're making a maximum of 500 signatures (not counting other templates). [[user:lett‪herebedarklight|raeb]] 04:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:As well as the WP:SIGLENGTH bit, if anybody actually cares about the precedent set by 'mother Wikipedia' then various other dos-and-don'ts from {{w|Wikipedia:Signatures}} might well apply to some extant personal signatures, from the "don't make it look like it's not your signature" through to being inconsiderate of the colour-blind and those otherwise vision-limited.
:It also gives some nice demonstrations of what ''can'' be done (within reason). Though I still say that just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. "Looks complicated, codes simply" would be my suggestion. Elegance of spirit, not a bloomin' juggernaut, if you're inclined to take my advice at all. You can still use personally distinctive signatures, and probably should. (Though, quite possibly, by the middle of next week, half the latest Talk comments are going to have orange-background. Don't care about that possibility, as much as I's like having vaguely recognisable namepage and timestamp bits to it that don't take effort to discern properly ''either'' when rendered ''or'' in raw code.) I have simple tastes, perhaps more than others... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.247.193|82.132.247.193]] 05:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Fully agree with raeb here, the last thing we need is more server load.
:*If you transclude them, then there's the server load and maximum transclusion problem.
:*If you substitute the template each time, the issue of hard-to-parse editing views gets worse. It's already annoying having to mentally "remove" your html codes when adding a comment, and we also don't have the VE, which would hide the code. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::I got edit conflicted, dangit. Anyway, both your complaints are either invalid or could easily be solved. The #ifexist limit could easily be bypassed if we simply delete the signatures of people who haven't contributed in, say, 6 months. The wikitext complaint is also invalid. Using the template as a signature would simply show <nowiki>{{User:XYZ/Sig}}</nowiki>, '''not the wikitext required to display the signature.''' Sincerely, --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 14:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi
simply delete the signatures of people who haven't contributed in, say, 6 months
:::''What?!''
:::Also, my 1st point wasn't mainly about #ifexist but about server load. It's as if you were adding the amount of code roughly equivalent to {{tl|incomplete}} to every single page you commented on, multiple times on the same page. This absolutely causes a ton of unnecessary server load. Imagine adding {{tl|incomplete}} hundreds of times to dozens and dozens of talk pages across the entire wiki. The software needs to keep all of them up-to-date. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::::What's wrong with deleting signatures? They can just make a new one, and 6 months seems like a good cutoff for 'they aren't coming back.' I know Tori was away for more than 6 months, she's an exception. The server load is an issue though. Maybe we need to wait for that until Jeff is able to fix the current server issues. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 17:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I randomly drop in every 6–12 months, for what it's worth. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 13:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Why penalize people who only occasionally contribute? What does it buy us? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 17:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
::::DSB, the Template is a horrible idea, ok? I slept on it and after further reflection, it really doesn't add much. People can always subst in signatures through <nowki>{{_}}</nowki>, and it'll also strain the server way too much. There's also a reason why sigs are capped at 255 characters-it'll become impossible to read talk pages if everyone had hulking 1000+ character sigs (like the one that I created). Please stop fixating so much on this specific idea. Also, it is quite rude to penalize people who only occasionally edit (and I don't want to be a special case or something like that-please stop treating me as some godly figure who is better than everyone else.) '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, you're right. The 255 character limit stands. Thread over, back to explaining. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 14:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

== Explain XKCD Discord/Social Media Server? ==

I was experiencing Cloudflare errors in the past 24 hours that had prevented me from accessing this website. It's working now, but I'm worried that something else would happen again. Would anybody be interested in organizing a group chat/server or something of the like outside of Explain XKCD? I would personally love if it was on Discord, as it's easy to use, convenient, is built great, and I use it often. If anybody else has suggestions, I'd be open to hear them! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 20:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
:Me too. It greatly worried me. If you want, I can set up a discord server. Personally, I prefer discord as it's very simple and has a clean interface. Again, only if you're interested. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
::[https://discord.com/invite/zGEVanBBAx Here you go!] '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::NICE! I wonder if we should message Kynde and see if he'll add it to the global messages. The more people, the better. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 01:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I didn't want to influence your original choice, but it would have been nice if you'd have chosen something less 'commercial', as a platform. Hope it helps, just don't forget about everyone else! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.131|82.132.238.131]] 09:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Discord is free. I feel it should be easy for everybody to join, even if they didn't already have discord. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 12:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::"Freemium" would be a better description, with all the Nitro-mandating stuff. But I already deleted my more specific past observations about all that. And see no point in resurrecting my original Discord presence as you probably can do more chatting about the rest of us without too many random strangers like me turning up, whatever the other IP-onlies decide to do. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.246.82|82.132.246.82]] 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

===Updating the global message board===
::''Moved from [[User_talk:Kynde#Updating_the_global_message_board]]'' [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I am excited to announce that explainxkcd now has a discord server! I was wondering if you could add it to the global message board (idk what it's called, actually. The one with the incomplete explanations message.) to include the discord invite link? The more people who join, the better, just in case cloudflare decides to have those issues again. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 13:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi. you did not include the link? Also I would like to know if other frequent editors think this is a great idea? Not all who edit here wish to be contactable on other platforms. I do understand where you wish the message to be though, and if this is a good idea we can put it there. I'm not certain what other people thinks though? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::I, for one, think it's a good idea. It's managed by Tori, so it's in very good hands. The only thing I'm afraid of is that discussions may not take place here, but I don't think that's enough of a reason not to promote it.
::The link is at [[User:42.book.addict]], in the second notice. I think we should say something like
In case this site goes down, we have created a Discord server as an emergency form of communication. (link)
::We aren't "excited to announce" a backup form of communication. Discussions must be public, not on external sites. This is merely a backup. I think it can then be removed from the sitenotice after a month or less, and mentioned on another page somewhere else, discretely. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for chiming in FaviFake. Can you find a good place for this, because I would like to link to a local page from the sitenotice. I do realize that people will have to go to this discord before problems arises, but I guess that is the way it ism and that wont change no matter how we announce it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::But 42 does intend for this to be used as "a fun place to connect with each other". Leaving it discrete would make it impossible for this to happen, because people won't see it. Also, for the record, FaviFake, 42 and I were. Multiple people. Me and her. That's how the English language works. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 16:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes you two are the ones who wishes for it and FaviFake was the first to chime in. Don't patronize me please! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have no idea what you're saying regarding the "English language", but please refrain from saying... whatever that was.
But 42 does intend for this to be used as "a fun place to connect with each other"
:::::Could you stop talking on behalf of 42? I believe you've been asked many times not to do that. You can either tell us what '''you''' think, or let others speak for themselves. 42 isn't a goddess and is able to engage in this conversation without someone "defending" her opinions.
:::::I'll create [[explain xkcd:Discord]] but need to think more about how this is supposed to be pitched. I do not want people to be incentivised to use a private, inaccessible discord server to, for example, talk about the newest comic. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I moved this discussions back here because it's relevant to the entire wiki, not just Kynde' talk.
:::::''Moved from [[User_talk:Kynde#Updating_the_global_message_board]]'' [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I was just trying to simultaneously defend both of our opinions and state the facts. Also, thank you to FaviFake for moving this conversation to the proposals. This seems to be happening with Kynde's talk page a lot recently. (that being twice, but I've never seen it happen before, soo...) --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 20:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi, it's me. The "global message board" DSB was referencing to is the [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice|site notice]]. If Kynde could add it in the format that FaviFake said, that would be great! Also, I had thought that the server ''could'' be a fun place for us to bond/talk, but that can obviously be conducted in DMs. FaviFake's reasoning for having all conversations on-site makes perfect sense to me. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 20:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::So THAT'S what it's called! I am one of today's lucky 10,000. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 23:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if I'm wrong or not, but I think of the discord as 2 things:
*A backup form of communication
*An informal place to hang out with fellow readers and editors.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

==Dark theme?==
I saw a post about this in the archives that went unanswered, so I'll ask it here: Why doesn't the wiki have a dark theme? I feel it would be very useful for those who don't want to be blinded by editing. Wikipedia's got one, and it looks great! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:Dark mode IS a thing. You need to create a common.css page to use it though. Copy paste in this to get dark mode (make sure to hit "Show preview" to test it out before you save!):

<code><nowiki> /* NQH's totally cool and amazingly radical dark mode */
/* Licensed CC0-1.0, no rights reserved. */

/* Sets everything to dark background. */
body * {background-color: #111 !important; color: #DDD !important;}
div.mw-body, div.mw-body * {background-color: #222 !important;}

/* Vector */

.mw-wiki-logo {background-color: #00000000 !important; filter: invert(100%);}

/* Monobook */

div#column-one > div#p-cactions > div.pBody > ul > li > a {background-color: #222 !important;}

/* Modern */

div#mw_header, div#mw_header h1#firstHeading {background-color: #000 !important;}
div#mw_content {background-color: #222 !important;}

/* Cologne blue */

/* Diff. */
td.diff-context, td.diff-context * {color: #777 !important; border-color: #333 !important;}
td.diff-deletedline {border-color: #F33 !important;}
td.diff-addedline {border-color: #3F3 !important;}
del.diffchange-inline {color: #F55 !important;}
ins.diffchange-inline {color: #5F5 !important;}

/* Numbers in history view. */
span.mw-plusminus-pos {color: #5F5 !important;}
span.mw-plusminus-neg {color: #F55 !important;}
strong.mw-plusminus-pos {color: #0F0 !important; font-size: 1.2em;}
strong.mw-plusminus-pos {color: #0F0 !important; font-size: 1.2em;}

/* Links. */
a[href$="redlink=1"] {color: #F00 !important; text-decoration: line-through !important;}
a:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #88F !important;}
a:visited:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #AAF !important;}
a:hover:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #AAF !important; text-decoration: underline !important; font-weight: bold !important;}
a:active:not([href$="redlink=1"]) {color: #FFF !important; text-decoration: underline !important; font-weight: bold !important;} </nowiki></code>

--'''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

::In response to DSB, in your userpage... The links being white... Which links? See the "/* Links. */" section. The various links are #F00 (red, the invalid ones), #88F (light blue), #AAF (lighter blue), or #FFF (white). If you don't like them, change them.
::The other things can probably be fixed if we know exactly what you're getting and what you actually expect. Also a good idea to check for typos/miscopying, via basic troubleshooting. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.246.204|82.132.246.204]] 22:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I got edit-conflicted with... seemingly no change. Anyway, I found a better version which I now use. It's much cleaner and looks like it belongs. Only issue is that the sidebar templates have inverted colors? But very minor. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 01:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
:::CODE!!!<code><nowiki>/* WikimediaUI Dark Mode
*
* Wikimedia Design Team 2019-2021
* Original authors:
* - Volker E. – [[User:Volker_E._(WMF)]]
* - Alex Hollender
* - MusikAnimal
* - Carolyn Li-Madeo
* - Jdlrobson
*
* Original at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volker_E._(WMF)/dark-mode.css
* Version for Gadget CSS skin override usage only.
* Basically removed of all interaction element styles and
* set to `html` instead of JS injected `.client-dark-mode` class.
*
* Last updated: 2021-04-20
*
*/

/** To prevent 'jumping' effect within #p-personal in Vector/Monobook. Overrides [[MediaWiki:Gadget-dark-mode-toggle-pagestyles.css]] **/
body.skin-vector-legacy :not(#pt-darkmode) + #pt-watchlist::before,
body.skin-monobook :not(#pt-darkmode) + #pt-watchlist::before {
content: "Light mode";
}

@media screen {

/* set height for monobook and timeless, because the filter in FF needs dimensions to get it to apply */
html {
height: 100%;
}

/* Filter needs to reside on `html`, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T221425#5153917 */
html,
/* All other selectors have `filter` double-applied to turn back to “normal” by inheritance */
html img:not( .mw-invert ),
html video:not( .mw-invert ),
html ogvjs:not( .mw-invert ),
html svg:not( .mw-invert ),
html iframe:not( .mw-invert ),
html .mw-no-invert,
html .cdx-no-invert,
html td .diffchange,
html .wvui-typeahead-suggestion__thumbnail,
html .skin-minerva .mw-notification-visible .mw-notification-content,
html .oo-ui-searchWidget-results .oo-ui-iconElement-icon,
html .list-thumb,
/* Extensions */
html .media-viewer .image img,
html .media-viewer .mw-file-description img {
filter: invert( 1 ) hue-rotate( 180deg );
}

/* Reset overrides, needed where double application above isn't working. */
/* Vector modern */
html .skin-vector .mw-logo-wordmark,
html .skin-vector .mw-logo-tagline,
html .skin-timeless .mw-wiki-title > img,
html .wvui-icon svg,
html .mw-ext-score img,
html .skin-invert img,
html .skin-invert-image img,
html .mw-hiero-table img {
filter: none;
}

/* Backgrounds */
html table,
html table.ambox-content,
html table.toccolours,
html .mw-notification,
html .mwe-popups,
html .infobox,
html .toc,
html .thumbinner,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'] > figcaption,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'] > figcaption,
html .wikitable,
html .cbnnr-main,
html .cx-callout,
html .overlay.media-viewer,
html #simpleSearch,
html #simpleSearch #searchInput,
html #siteNotice #centralNotice .cnotice {
background-color: #ddd;
}

/* Borders */
html body,
html h1,
html h2,
html h3,
html h4,
html h5,
html h6,
html table.ambox-content,
html table.toccolours,
html .mw-notification,
html .infobox,
html .toc,
html .thumbinner,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'],
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'] > figcaption,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'] > figcaption,
html #mw-head,
html #mw-panel,
/* Vector 2022 uses a transparent border for margin collapsing
(T312822) so don't apply this rule there */
.skin-vector-legacy #content.mw-body,
html #simpleSearch,
html #simpleSearch #searchInput,
html #siteNotice #centralNotice .cnotice {
border-color: #cdcbc8;
}

/* Links */
/* Links: normal */
html a,
html .vector-menu-tabs li a,
/* Backwards compatible VectorTabs, deprecated in MW v1.35. */
html .vectorTabs li a,
html .toctogglelabel,
html .mw-parser-output a.external,
html .mw-parser-output a.extiw,
html .mw-parser-output a.extiw:active,
html #mw-panel .portal .body li a {
/* color: #69f; Proposal below for level AA conformance, see also https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T233266
`#36c` is transformed by :root `filter` to be closer to chosen `#69f`. */
color: #36c;
}

/* Links: visited */
html a:visited,
html .mw-parser-output a.extiw:visited,
html #mw-panel .portal .body li a:visited {
/* color: #709bbd; Proposal below uses to-be-standardized color from https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T213778 */
color: #6b4ba1;
}

/* Links: red */
html a.new,
html .vector-menu-tabs li.new a,
html .vectorTabs li.new a {
color: #ff6e6e;
}

/* ::: Special Element Treatments ::: */
/* Image thumbnails */
html .thumbimage,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Thumb'] > :not(figcaption) .mw-file-element,
html figure[typeof~='mw:File/Frame'] > :not(figcaption) .mw-file-element {
border: 0;
}

/* Content image (thumbnail) SVGs */
/* `*not( .mbox-image )` exception doesn't work for unclear reasons */
html .image img[ src*='svg' ],
html .mw-file-description img[ src*='svg' ],
html img[ src*='Wiktionary-logo'] {
background-color: #fff;
border-radius: 1px;
}

/* Dealing with false positives from selector above */
html .mw-echo-ui-notificationItemWidget-icon img[ src*='svg' ],
html .mbox-image .image img[ src*='svg' ],
html .mbox-image .mw-file-description img[ src*='svg' ],
/* Emoji generated by [[Template:Emoji]] */
html .emoji .image img,
html .emoji .mw-file-description img,
/* Vote symbols on Talk pages */
html .image img[ alt^="Symbol" ],
html .mw-file-description img[ alt^="Symbol" ] {
background-color: transparent;
}

/* Page previews */
html .mwe-popups {
box-shadow: 0 30px 90px -20px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.3 ), 0 0 1px #000;
}

html .mwe-popups.flipped-y:after,
html .mwe-popups.flipped-x-y:after {
border-top: 11px solid #ddd;
}

html .mwe-popups.mwe-popups-no-image-pointer:after {
border-bottom: 11px solid #ddd;
}

/* Contributions menu */
html .cx-callout-1:after {
border-bottom-color: #ddd;
}

/* Mobile Wikipedia logo mobile header */
html .branding-box img {
filter: brightness( 0 );
}

}

@-moz-document url-prefix() {
body {
background: #000;
}
}

@-moz-document url-prefix() {
@supports (overflow-clip-margin: 1px) {
body {
background: #fff;
}
}
}
</nowiki></code>
--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 13:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

==Page Creation site notice for new accounts==
Many, many, '''''many''''' new people come around and ask other users about how to create their own user pages. Personally, I think we could stop the confusion by coding a different type of 'you do not have permission to create this page' error for new accounts, which would look something like this:

'To create new pages, your account must be at least a week old and have 50 edits. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page.'

Just a thought, in case admins can do that without Jeff's involvement. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

: I'd {{template|Actual citation needed}} on the "many"s, unless you're aware of off-site discussions about this one. It's actually pretty infrequent, so I feel you must be counting over several years, having found a number of historic examples dotted around on pages such as this. That said, it ''is'' currently as much an FAQ as anything else ([[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ#Why can't I create my user page and upload images?|as actually mentioned there]], for anyone who bothers to read it). And we do sometimes get a new-users, the ones freshly post-validated to create pages merrily 'helping out' all those they think need their help in that regard.
: Can I suggest that we do not have the exact number of edits so prominantly, though. Within the last day, as a matter of fact, we seem to have had someone making many useless edits (mostly of the form of adding extra spaces into seemingly random places within seemingly random articles), possibly in order to have created a new page of their own. And that's ''really'' not to the spirit of things. Inviting, or at least suggestively hinting, the possibility of near-vandalism (hopefully not ''actual'' vandalism) for the impatient who just see it as a 'target' to try to reach. And the truly and genuinely eager to contribute can easily have clocked up that number of edits to existing pages ''with no edit-tallying motive'' by the time the mandatory week has also expired.
: The caveat, I know, is that saying "a week and ''a certain number of edits''", aluded to but unspecified, will have the some of the same uselessly-editing people chasing an arbitrarily high edit-tally in order to be 'ready' for the week finishing. But that kind of person is already of the wrong initial mindset. And people desperate to create new pages with perhaps little more than a week of having, in ''most other respects'', full editing rights (which is only marginally more than IPs like me have, as there only a few key places that I am prevented from editing) tend to find themselves likely to be contributing to the Category: Pages to Delete list (perhaps courtesy of more established editors).
: On balance, perhaps the page you mention should instead briefly contain a link to the existing FAQ section, via link text explaining that there ''are'' reasons, but "see here" for details, or similar non-specific wording. Anyone who hasn't read the FAQ could benefit from being aware that it exists. And if anything ever changes (rise or fall of the time or tally limits, even removal or addition of specific criteria), the FAQ will probably be sooner updated with the new details before anyone thinks to edit the 'error page' again (a particular page that long-established users will have rarely, if ever, seen). Assuming, of course, even that anyone can edit that level of page content right now. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.184.204|82.132.184.204]] 23:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t have time to read ip's comment but i definitely think the number shouldn't be so public, and i don’t see a need. i would support a small editnoce for letting users know they have to vaguely contribute more. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

== Some suggestions surrounding the use of the {{template|unsigned}} and {{template|unsigned ip}} templates. ==

;Where I just reference the {{template|unsigned}} template, there should also be an obvious extension of the same principle to the {{template|unsigned ip}} one as well.)

These are some interelated proposals, that could be implemented singly/incrementally (as desired and agreed upon). But might deserve doing in 'one go', at least the agreed upon elements. I'm just putting each bit into different subsections for isolated discussion (or ignoring) of the specific merits/otherwise of each. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
;TD;DR;s added, if you don't like the author's original verbosity. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

===Aesthetic/semantic change===
Issue: Not often, but sometimes, comments that are 'unsigned'-tagged (with the words "please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>") invokes retrospective use of <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> by those who take the words at face value. This ''can'' result in a (previously) 'unsigned' message having a later timestamp than its replies, or later 'top level' messages more immediately signed by their editors.

The more 'proper' way to replace an {{template|unsigned}} tag, for those that want to, would be to copy-paste a valid signature of the same type and replace the username(/IP) and datestamp as already (usually!) given in that initial pester-tag. But this is by no means made obvious in the above message.

Proposal: Wording to be changed to something like "in future, please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>", or "this comment should have been signed with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Or other wording, to be agreed upon, to make as snappy as the original ("was not signed with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"). The aim is to omit the implicit request to anachrnistically sign, however.

Overall effect: Any change to the template(s) will transclude to what would probably be an overwhelming majority of Talk pages (at a guess), plus other 'discussion' pages like these Portal ones. But there's no change in functionality or any individual page-updating, just the slightly different text when viewing in future.
*Note1: the {{template|unsigned}} template already takes a (rarely used) third parameter, which overwrites the "please sign..." message (i.e. <code><nowiki>{{unsigned|<username>|<timestamp>|<alternate message>}}</nowiki></code>, and it'd still be overwritten exactly the same wherever that has been applied.
*Note2: it also would not rewrite the text given of any originally "subst:"ed version of the template, but that's a completely different issue.

Justification: The need may be slight, but it's also a trivial tweak to implement (or even to trial) with a marginal but maybe useful long-term gain. But we'll need a proper discussion of what wording to move to, or else that it's not necessary. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

: Case in point {{diff|389535|the few edits that led up to here}}. Didn't really 'spoil' any actual chronology but shows how easily it is obeyed wrongly. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 18:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

;TL;DR;:Change the text from "please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>", slightly. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

===Additional templates to complement 'unsigned' ones===
Issue: Retrospective 'honest faking' of previously missing signatures is mildly awkward, as mentioned above. It's easy to get wrong, even easier to just not bother at all with it. (Either leave 'unsigned' or create the issue from the prior item.

Proposal: Complement the template usage <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''un''<nowiki>signed|<username>|<timestamp>}}</nowiki> with one that is <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''retro''<nowiki>signed|<username>|<timestamp>}}</nowiki>. Take the same parameters (except the 'alternate pester text') but return just the effective <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>-style format, now no longer with the 'please sign...'-type appended message.

There are a number of possible uses for this:

#''user1'' forgets to sign; ''user2'' spots this, invokes {{template|unsigned}} to it; ''user1'' '''acknowledges''' their goof, by simply changing the template-invocation of "unsigned" to "retrosigned" and the rendered page is left neater (any "whoops, my bad!" apologies can be given in the edit-comments, as unused third-parameter, etc, if they wish),
#''user1'' forgets to sign; ''user1'', themself, spots this (before anyone else) and applies this as easily as they would apply a {{template|unsigned}}. Slightly easier than 'honest faking' that involves the valid copypaste-method (again, with "whoops!, my bad!" opportunities, should they feel like it),
#''user1'' forgets to sign; ''user2'' spots this; knows that it's an oversight by a regular contributor who just slipped up, and there's no reason to make it a 'pester message'; so ''user2'' just goes straight to using Template:retrosigned, and doesn't bother with the 'pestering' or 'blaming' implications inherent in Template:unsigned),
#''user1'' forgot to sign ''...a decade ago or more!''; We know that (for example) User:Jeff is unlikely to benefit from being reminded/pestered/shamed, so it just seems better to let the more recent editor 'retrosign' any such example that gets discovered,
#or possibly, '''with care, ''and honesty'':''' someone, as ''newusername'', wishes to associate themselves with comments made by ''oldusername'', or even any given ''ip-address'' contrinution they previously used; that's something I wouldn't do myself, but I could see the appeal.
*Note1: my method (and that of others?) to edit in an 'unsigned'-tag is to copy the header info from the appropriate diff page's column, paste that text (containing datestamp and ID of contributor, together with some other textual cruft) as unsigned-tag parameters, rearrange edit ("timestamp" then "userid", with a few extra characters, becomes "|userid|timestamp" parameters), the same method would entirely work with the retrosigned version too.
**This, however, does not contain the "(UTC)" timezone info that <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> would give by default, so a similarly direct retroactive 'fake' will also lack this. Eagle-eyed readers might pick up on this. Which isn't an issue that concerns me. (One could always manually append " (UTC)" to the second-param, or after the template itself, even if I don't think it worth the bother.)
*Note2: It doesn't reproduce the appearance of anyone's custom signature, if they had one that should have been invoked. But also a trivial differemce, having resolved the whole issue of "no longer being unsigned".
**Should anyone ''really'' care to reproduce a custom/non-standard signature, they can still do so (on their behalf or someone else's). This is just the quick and easy

Justification: The idea is to allow for the 'tidying up' of the front-facing pages with less convoluted and more honest back-end edits. I don't expect, or want, anyone to retrospectively convert historic 'unsigned' tags just for the sake of it, but it adds a tool to the kit of anyone who is already prepared to 'correct' these things (their own, or others) in any given page-source.

I'd potentially use it for long-standing editor's lapses (the "Template:retrosigned" version), to feel less guilty about apparently nagging them about it. Or upon myself (the "Template:retrosigned ip" version), if I slipped up, to feel less guilty for going back in and 'honestly faking' what I had forgotten to sign, but (as noted above) there are several other applicable uses. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

;TL;DR;:Let there be "retrosigned" and "retrosigned ip" to be used where {{template|unsigned}} and {{template|unsigned ip}} are not (any longer) what is needed somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

===Tracking parameter underutilisation===
Issue: Early implementation, and sometimes more recent, of the {{template|unsigned}} template may use its most basic <code><nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki></code> form with ''no parameters given''. This gives an 'error', of sorts, due to having no official check-and-fallback upon not being given the username parameter. The error is visual only, and ''may'' have been allowed/forced to happen as a way to force its correction (though, at least until recently, it sees not to have done this as much as it should have).

Other times, perhaps immediately after the first parameter (contributor name) started to be routinely added, <code><nowiki>{{unsigned|username}}</nowiki></code> is used ''without the timestamp parameter'' that we now mostly take for granted.

(While the current third parameter, the 'alternate "pease..." text' is entirely an optional and a mostly unused feature, future changes may require/encourage further elements (perhaps 'named parameters') and leave our default "unsigned|username|timestamp" format lacking.)

I've been known to update any discovered 'bare bones'-unsigned formats, if I find any in pages I edit. Someone else seems to have adopted it as a task of its own, recently. This relies upon spotting the non-standard (or at least non-modern) usages.

Additionally, there ''is'' the in getting the rather ugly <code> -- [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''</code> 'error' for all no-param versions that exist.

Proposal: Firstly, just implement the 'catch' code upon the (lack of) first parameter. Make it 'fail cleanly', or at least less 'errorlike'. This is trivial to implement (i.e. <code><nowiki>{{{1|}}}</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki></code>). (I'd do that right now, if I could.)

Secondly, within the 'failover' half of the 'non-parameter' parsing, give it a Category: membership.

I have several possible suggestions for the style of Category membership:
# If the 'userID' isn't given, perhaps "Category:Unsigned no-UserID", if the 'timestamp' isn't given, "Category:Unsigned no-timestamp", and any others.
#* Note: the system could be extended to other templates, such as "Category:Incomplete no-reason" or perhaps "Category:Comic no-image", but that's not officially part of this suggestion.
# More simply, just have "Category:Unsigned-error", without specifying. (Or even "Category:Template-error" for far more generalised use.)
# Differently specific, use the category re-indexing (something like <code><nowiki>[[Category:Template-error|blah]]</nowiki></code>) for handy grouping-with-differentiation

Obviously, the appropriate category-page needs to be there to show any (and all) invocations. Similar to the [[:Category:Incomplete explanations]] one, etc, it would invite action to ''remove'' membership as examples are sorted.

Justification: This is a solution for 'meta-problems', really. Which 'category membership' option is used would define how much additional editing(/correcting) this might prompt for historic problems, as well as identifying improperly added new template-invocations. But it might be good to know exactly how wide or narrow a scope people might wish to apply to this, before going ahead and creating many new 'error' categories... one even just the single catch-all one. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
;TL;DR;:Make it easier to find 'incompletely implemented' templates (initially the Unsigned ones), so they can be fixed by anyone who would like to. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
----
This looks AI-generated. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:Really? Unless AIs are doing 'accidentally on purpose' typos, I think it just looks like someone with more ideas trying to burst out onto the page than they can easily (and accurately) summarise. And I'm also that type of person, so I can ''easily'' relate. There, but for the grace of <s>God</s> any-unspecific-generalised-universal-force-of-non-deterministic-fate goes I! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.237|82.132.245.237]] 18:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:Added a "''Too Long; Didn't Read;''" summary to each, as I understand the intents. ;) Now I'm wondering if there are any other things I might do that for! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

==Banning the phrase "WhatsApp"==
I've noticed that lately, much of our vandalism has come out of scamvertisements asking you to contact the scammers on WhatsApp. As I don't believe Randall has ever actually used WhatsApp, and as such it is unneeded, I feel we should just prevent any edits containing the word 'WhatsApp' from going through if the edit removes more than 90% of the page's byte count (let's be honest, nobody is going to delete that much from a page). --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 17:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
:The standard protection is to have [[user:theusaf]] to refine/expand what theusafBOT reacts to. Which it seems they occasionally do.
:I don't know whether they're paying attention, but I'd hope they'd pick up on such things. Given that it's the Feedback/etc comics that regularly get spammed like this, I'd hope they'd at least try to see what someone else reverted in leiu, and adapt accordingly, when they get the time.
:I don't know the various sets of exact criteria in use (some seem generally obvious enough, key patterns and keywords involved) and I think something to at least start with "blanked page and replaced with ...", on specific sets of pages, as an edit comment could be a good predictor with minimal false-positives. But I wouldn't want to explicitly suggest that (or your idea), lest the more attentive spammers made a trivial change to their future edit plans to by-pass it.
:...though I frankly think those responsible in this case don't care/think ''too'' much about it, it's more for all the other things I'd rather leave trivially unguessable how to get round. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.138|82.132.244.138]] 18:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
::I'll look into this. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 22:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Hey look, an admin that isn't Kynde! That's... actually the first time I've seen an admin that isn't Kynde in person. Cool! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 17:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I'm not super active in the discussions, but I occasionally edit and check that by bot is still working and not destroying anything. The whatsapp check has been added. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 05:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::*SKIBIDI-POP PA-DOOP TA-DA TAAAA!!!!* --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

==Adblock popup==
This wiki uses ads as a way to make money and keep the website up, and many people use adblockers (the absolute state of YT ads is insane). So, why don't we add one of those AdBlock popups that they have on some sites? Maybe the message could be:

{{Header text|So, about that AdBlock... 

explain xkcd uses ads to keep our server online. Please consider turning off your AdBlock so we can continue providing quality explanations. Thanks!}}

This would be an optional thing and easily closable, but it could provide at least a bit of extra revenue. Maybe we could also make a 'thank you' screen for people who do actually turn off their adblocker (it would only pop up once, after they turn off the AdBlock):

{{Header text|Thank you for turning off your adblocker!

Sincerely, the explain xkcd community.}}

What do you guys think? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|converse]] 15:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Adblockers often also can block anti-adblock popups, but sure, go ahead. I guess you could also ask for donations to run the site. Same caveat applies. - an adblock user. [[User:None|None]] ([[User talk:None|talk]]) 20:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

== categories template ==

Hear me out: I've been doing a lot of category adding to mostly files that are uncategorized (BTW, we have a 11,000-12,000 backlog of pages-any help (or maybe a bot!) would be greatly appreciated). I think that we should make a template called Category or "cat" so that we can add categories faster. Of course, HotCat exists, but it only renders when there are already existing categories. For all the uncategorized files/pages, we would have to manually add it in. My strategy currently is moving my mouse to the edit button, clicking it, hit return to make a whitespace (for organization), hitting CTRL-V, moving my mouse to the "Save changes" button, and clicking it. And that's only for the really repetitive ones, like the comic images or Hoverboard or Time. Does anybody have any thoughts/objections to this? Of course, we would still need to edit, but it would be a lot easier than typing out <nowiki>[[Category:___]]</nowiki> IMHO. Additionally, I've studied up a bit of template code (Lua) and I've sort of fleshed out some code. I don't really know if it works, but if there's anybody more experienced feel free to look through it! I've included Pages to delete (ptd) and Helper comic images (hci) as examples. 

<code><nowiki>
{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|ptd|
[[Category:Pages to delete]]
}}

{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|hci|
{{#if:{{{2|}}}
| [[Category:Helper comic images ({{{2}}})]]
| [[Category:Helper comic images]]
}}
}}
</nowiki></code>

Thanks, --'''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 10:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:That's actually a good idea! So, it would be: <code><nowiki>{{cat|Helper comic images (1190)}}</nowiki></code>? That would be quite convenient. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::As written, I read it as...
::If "ptd" in the first spot, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{cat|ptd}}</nowiki></code>, that would give the Pages To Delete category.
::If "hci" in the first spot, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{cat|hci}}</nowiki></code>, then it would instead Helper Comic Images
::If "hci" in the first spot and a number in the second, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{cat|hci|1234}}</nowiki></code>, then it would instead give you Helper Comic Images (1234).
::There are maybe a few minor issues with it, as written. I'd use <code><nowiki>{{{1|}}}</nowiki></code>, for starters, and nest it so that any non-specified (including blank) param would give out an obvious mis-use error result. And you'd probably end up having <code><nowiki>{{cat|<whatever>}}</nowiki></code> sitting in your paste buffer (or would <code><nowiki>{{subst:cat|<whatever>}}</nowiki></code> be better?) exactly the same as you'd have had the basic Category, anyway.
::But I really wouldn't know where it sits in the [[1205: Is It Worth the Time?]] scale... Almost a "death by supernova neutrinos" issue, I suspect... ;) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
: I would use a switch instead of an if, like
:<code><nowiki><includeonly>[[Category:{{subst:#switch:{{{1}}}
| ptd = Pages to delete
| hci = Helper comic images {{subst:#if: {{{2|}}} | ({{{2}}}) }}
| {{{1|}}}
}}]]</includeonly></nowiki></code>
: It should be used with <nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki> because otherwise the category won't be able to be removed normally, but it technically works without it. The substs before the ifs make the resulting wikitext nicer, as otherwise when the overall template is used with <nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki>, it inserts the if statements directly. Consequently, it must be enclosed in includeonly's to prevent the substitution from occurring when the template is saved. It will also default to inserting the category with the name of the first argument, but it is longer to type using the template like this (<nowiki>{{subst:cat|All comics}}</nowiki>) than just typing the category directly (<nowiki>[[Category:All comics]]</nowiki>).
:If having an obvious error message is desired, you could replace the default case (the <code><nowiki>{{{1|}}}</nowiki></code>) with something like <code><nowiki>]] Invalid argument for [[Template:cat</nowiki></code>. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 05:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
All fo this sounds good! I don't have the time to look into this but Firestar233 is incredible with templates so i trust their code will work! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

== New Character Proposal for Kid Cueballs ==

I'm somewhat new to editing, though I've been using this wiki for some time now. And I've noticed that with comics such as 3178, whenever a kid is represented by Cueball the transcript says "a Cueball like kid" which is long and slightly annoying to read. So I propose giving the kid a name that's shorter and easier to use but still let's the reader know that a kid is being represented by Cueball: Kidball.

Thoughts? -- [[User:MikeTheNewGuy|MikeTheNewGuy]] ([[User talk:MikeTheNewGuy|talk]]) 13:25, 17 January 2026‎ (UTC)
: Hi, Mike; welcome to ExplainXKCD. BTW, I added your signature to your comment.
: But, on-topic: this sounds like an interesting idea. But, in your mind, is this "Kidball" always the same kid, rather than a type of kid? Would you expect that if you see "Kidball" in a new comic he'll behave the same way? If not, then I wouldn't add this name. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 13:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for adding my signature, I’m gonna have to remember to do that.
::What I had in mind with Kidball was that most of the time he’s the same kid (since most of the time he only appears in Miss Lenhart’s class, at least that’s where he’s been the majority of the times I’ve seen him), but is occasionally used to represent someone else; in the same way that Cueball appears to be the same person most of the time, but Randall occasionally uses him to represent someone else. And using “Kidball” in the explanations/transcripts might be more efficient than “a Cueball like kid”.
::And yes, if I saw him in a new comic, I would expect him to more or less behave the same way, unless it’s clear that he’s representing someone else.[[User:MikeTheNewGuy|MikeTheNewGuy]] ([[User talk:MikeTheNewGuy|talk]]) 18:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not sure; let's see what others think. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 18:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
:::I do think that he can and should be named, as he's very similar to [[Jill]], even if she has more personality than him. And Kidball is an amazing name! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I concur. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Me too. I'm not trusting myself with the actual page creation, so somebody else will need to create it. (sorry, just don't want to mess things up) --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]]''''' 22:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I've made them. See [[Kidball]] and [[:Category:Comics featuring Kidball]]. I've also changed the header of this thread for more clarity. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 01:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! Anyone up for populating it? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 08:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'll try to see if I can find the time (and motivation) to do so this week. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I just went through [[:Category:Comics featuring children]] and added about 9 to [[:Category:Comics featuring Kidball]]. We're getting there! [[User:Maxcodes|Maxcodes]] ([[User talk:Maxcodes|talk]]) 14:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Should comics with multiple Kidballs be placed in [[:Category:Multiple Cueballs]], or should a new category be created? [[User:Maxcodes|Maxcodes]] ([[User talk:Maxcodes|talk]]) 12:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: (First, I made it markup as a "visible category link", as you intended, rather than the invisible category membership that normally happens, hope you don't mind.)
:::: A further question is if a comic was Multiple Cueballs, by dint of having a Cueball ''and'' a now-IDed-as-Kidball, is it still Multiple Cueballs? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.239|82.132.239.239]] 13:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

:::: We've only just got to the point where we're naming this character Kidball; I'd say don't complicate the situation just yet. Too many categories makes the categories less useful. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 13:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: Children are rarely alone, normally being with other children and/or with one or one-or-more adults. So [[:Category:Comics featuring children]] covers Multiple Kidballs.
:::: I'd say that Multiple Cueballs is a notable 'common strangeness' that I think it's useful to continue note, for various reasons, but multiple non-Cueball characters (e.g. how [[1000]] has it, in-extremis) aren't worth all the various different character-specific 'multiple' categories. (And, yes, an adult Cueball and a Kidball should not be "Multiple Cueballs".) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Multiple Cueballs is usually for unusual cases where there isn't a different main character other than cueball. A bald kid and a bald adult are two different people. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
== Bring back mboxes! ==

[https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Mbox Mboxes] (do read that link) are message boxes that prompt editors to edit.
They say things such as, "'''Please help expand this page.'''"
However, they aren't on this wiki!

So, there are a few different templates resembling mboxes:
* {{template|notice}},
* {{template|notice2}},
* {{template|incomplete}}, and
* {{template|incomplete transcript}}
are just a few I've seen.

I just don't think this is the way! Also, I checked {{template|ambox}} and it said it was deleted. However, the proposal archive
isn't working and I can't check the reason. So I can't see why we aren't using them!

Here are a few arguments for mboxes:
* Mboxes can be different types, such as a notice or an alert, or even an incomplete notice, with a <code>type</code> attribute.
* Mboxes are <abbr title="Don't Repeat Yourself">DRY</abbr>, they're reusable.
* Mboxes are used on Wikipedia, and other sites I'm sure, so using them here will make it more comfortable for new editors coming from other sites such as Wikipedia.
* Using mboxes will make styling all alerts easier. (OK YES I ADMIT IT I WANT MY USER STYLES)

So why aren't we using them? I'm thinking that if this topic gets enough support, we can bring mboxes back, and
start transitioning old alerts to mbox variants.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. [[User:Maxcodes|Maxcodes]] ([[User talk:Maxcodes|talk]]) 14:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:The discussion, as you said, is in the archive: [[explain_xkcd_talk:Community_portal/Proposals#Notice_templates]]. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

== Transcripts ==

ATTENTION!

THIS:

Blah blah '''BLAH'''
''BLAH blah blah''
Wordssss…………

(Fill in blahs with your own words! Choose your own adventure fun!)

Is not a transcript!

I’ve had the impression that transcripts were for blind people (well, not ''just'' blind people) and making transcripts like the one above is only making things harder for people who may read aloud for blind people. Use things like [bold text] or [italics] or [comic in red text].

Idk wh6 I wrote this it just been bothering me. {{unsigned ip|2600:4040:52f7:9a00:cdb5:8d4d:4a6c:9917|16:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)}}
:I've always wondered who the transcripts are even for. Since both the comics and the transcripts are in the same medium, those who are blind wouldn't be able to see the transcript. I guess they could have it read to them, but it's still confusing. As far as I know, it's just a thing that very early editors used to do, and the tradition stuck. What's the reasoning behind the transcripts? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] (BLM)''''' 14:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::There exists the {{w|screen reader}}, which (at least until you start to trust AI, and there ''are'' undoubtely some good AI ATs out there that do this, these days, but are trained more to help with RL situations, like "what items are on the shop shelf I'm currently standing in front of?", not stick-figures and line-art...) can't do anything useful with the non-meta contents of an image but will happily speak out a transcript.
::It probably also helps, even if you don't need it spoken out for you, if you have a hankering of searching for a particular comic and you know some written words in it that might not ''necessarily'' be quoted verbatim in the Explanation. The text being all there in the Transcript section means you can get this site (or perhaps your caching search-engine of choice) to find it, without even relying on someone having decided to quote it directly elsewhere (which is often not good and/or necessary for an Explanation/Discussion/Trivia section contribution).
::If you're ''really'' lucky, you can even search for [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?search=%22office+chair%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go some random visual thing], as long as it's been mentioned, without relying upon it havng already had a thoroughly populated Category... That relies upon any useful example having the same exact wording in the Transcript (and/or Explanation), but it's better than if you don't have any Transcripts at all.
::There are other useful things, a bit less obvious. Yet perhaps you could argue the presence of the Transcript may not actually be that vital... I don't know if anyone here ''does'' even use a screen-reader (but is still interested in webcomics ...a very visual medium). And there are probably other ways to get the other other advantages of the Transcript. Perhaps we could just make sure ''everything'' currently Transcripted is added to the Explanation (though that seems wasteful, and might make the Explanation far ''less'' useful/readable, having to fight past the obligatory in-depth explanation of whether Cueball's arm is raised in a particular panel or not...). But currently the Transcript exists, for those that need (or like) it, and also anybody who doesn't can just ignore it.
::And unless you're going to fold ''all'' Transcripts into the rest of the Explanation, it seems rather strange to just stop creating them. Honestly, it's probably half the fun for some people. And even another 'First!'-brag for users to bag, without being actually so crass as to edit anything just to say "First!" ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I still do think that the people who need a screen reader would be interested in webcomics, although there probably exists a small population of people who are. Also, screen readers do not necessarily need to use AI in anything except for the voice. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not there. You may have missed a "not" or something in there somewhere. And screen-readers don't need ''any'' AI (as we would currently expect it), although doubtless the last few years development of LLM/GenerativeAIs has probably improved them from 'dumb phonology' (with quirks that users would have to get use to) to actually saying things more eloquently and even correctly voice non-homophonic homographs correctly...
::::But, anyway, there's the other reasons for a Transcript, even if I don't know if anyone does bother to use SRs. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I did, indeed, accidentally miss a 'not'. I DON'T think that those who need screen readers would be interested in webcomics. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::You'd be surprised. Just take a look at this discussion: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Sightless_readers_offended_by_the_.22It.27s_.27cause_you.27re_dumb.22_tagline. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::...I stand corrected. Also, [[2134: Too Much Talking|I have an opinion]] about that discussion after reading it. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 13:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

==New search algorithm?==
I was searching for a specific comic based on some words from the transcript. I was looking for [[2134: Too Much Talking]] and was searching "new opinions". INSTEAD of getting only results which had the phrase "new opinions", I got every comic which had the word 'new' or 'opinion' ANYWHERE in its explanation or transcript. I got over 100 hits and had to go through each preview individually, which was quite annoying and took far too long. I think there should be a function or option that you could turn on which makes it so, when you search "new opinions", it only displays pages with the search term and doesn't display anything which only contains a part of it. This happens every time I try to search. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
:You probably searched for (quote)<code>new opinions</code>(unquote), but you'll find that you'll get exactly what you wanted from (quote)<code>"new opinions"</code>(unquote) ''with'' the literal quotes.
:Like I did, by ending up on the page https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?search=%22new+opinions%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go just now.
:Note that searches just for (quote)<code>new</code>(unquote) ''or'' just for (quote)<code>opinions</code>(unquote) return many (thousands!) of matches. (quote)<code>new opinions</code>(unquote) 'only' seems to return 42 examples (now including this page?). This would include examples of "opinion new" ordering or even totally separate uses like if any a phrase like "...relying upon old opinions, rather than new facts..." was used. An ''actual'' example, is the following search-result snippet:
::..., with no real bearing on most peoples' lives, a lot of people have strong '''opinions''' on the topic. One on side, people argue that planets should have a consiste ...with such debates, to the point of damaging their relationship, is nothing '''new''' for this couple.
:I don't know how we'd even update/change the search-algorithm.
:And, note, it'd annoy those who are already used to what subtle ways there are to be either more or less finicky in a desired search. Searching for mention of "dog leads"? The (unquoted) search for "dog lead" might be better to find "he has a dog on a lead" without (normally) getting pages that say something like "a heavy element, like lead". A quoted-search, or an assumption that the user would have wanted a quoted-search, would miss the first example.
:There may be various other tricks and tips to search-formatting. The use of "+" before a particular term used to (on Google) force that as a required match, when it might have included "does not include..." on a page that contains every other word, just not that one. But this site doesn't seem to have the full (traditional) Google-Fu behaviour, that also included things like (quote)<code>-dog lead</code>(unquote) that could get you (mostly) the metal or connecting cable references to lead without so.much of the additional pet-restraint homonym, but then the Google algorithm has also changed so much over the years (Natural Language Processing and even more AI-based methods, rather than a more obvious codified 'markup' to one's search terms where it was the user's initial knowledge that more limited the search, intentinally or otherwise). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.115|82.132.238.115]] 16:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

== Excessive verbosity ==

Should we have a category and community portal link to it for explanations which are considered excessively verbose to the point of deteriorating their usefulness to the readers? [[Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1200:596A:A08E:FCB1:F968:D433|2603:800C:1200:596A:A08E:FCB1:F968:D433]] 20:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:Define excessive. (Also: Define insufficient.) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::He never even said "insufficient". He said that making a whole essay as a response (I'll link some examples below) is a waste of time because all the text is overwhelming and it becomes harder to pick out the important parts. By the way, he may be referring to you, as you tend to make very long responses (read: not necessarily a bad thing). 
::Some examples:
::*[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3231:_Lightning&curid=30046&diff=410387&oldid=410386 this edit by 81.179.199.253]
::*[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3232:_Countdown_Standard&curid=30051&diff=410328&oldid=410327 this edit by 81.179.199.253]
::*[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3231:_Lightning&curid=30046&diff=410157&oldid=410141 this edit by 82.132.238.12]
::--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 21:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Indeed. "Insufficient" was was seaid by me (IPv4), not IPv6. The point being that I'm not sure what amount of paring down would satisfy them, and what amount would be problematic to them.
:::If some information is there but looks superfluous to someone, they might remove it. If the information is not there but seems necessary, some other person might add it. And everyone has different ideas.
:::And in the two editing examples (and the example that wasn't me), they aren't even Explanation additions, which I'm sure (but will happily be corrected on) wasn't what the suggestion was about. Also, I make no apologies for being verbose enough to encopass a complicated issue, when I think it merits it, especially in Talk. There's also occasion to cut down/rationalise things (in Explanations), especially when multiple editors have added a concept here, an example there, a caveat at the end, etc, which might be best rewritten from scratch.
:::Face it, we who seek to "explain xkcd" have many things to say, whether we we're Nerd Sniped or just happen to think of something interesting but unmentioned. And those who wish xkcd to be explained may have many questions (even if they {{diff|410158|don't say what they are}}. Perhaps I personally err more on maintaining a verbosity (that can be skipped over by the impatient reader) rather than risk being too laconic (and leave out something that others would want/need to be said).
:::I consciously ''tried'' to convey all of what I've just said by just five words, you'll notice. Maybe ten words would have been better? [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::I did actually define it, plain as day! Excessive verbosity is "excessively verbose to the point of deteriorating [an explanation's] usefulness to the readers."
::Please I know this has been something of a pattern for years now, and I don't know who all is involved or how many, of course, but could you please try showing some restraint? For example, when you're typing a long paragraph and you're not 100% sure it would make the explanation clearer or more helpful in some concrete way, would you please consider posting it on the talk page and asking others whether they think it should be added, or at least ask others for help with brevity? [[Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1200:596A:FDFE:A728:80A:5859|2603:800C:1200:596A:FDFE:A728:80A:5859]] 01:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::They do have a point, IPv4. Many of your comments exceed 1,000 bytes in length, and most go above 500. 
:::1)''"If some information is there but looks superfluous to someone, they might remove it."'' Most people are probably going to be encouraged ''not'' to edit other people's comments (see [[User talk:42.book.addict#Editing other people's words?|here]]) 
:::2)''"In the two editing examples, they aren't even explanation additions..."'' That's precisely the point. Large additions to explanations are fine, if it all relates to the comic in some way. Large talk page replies, however, are much harder to navigate. 
:::3)''"Perhaps I personally err on maintaining a verbosity (that can be skipped over by the impatient reader) rather than risk being too laconic (and leave out something that others would want/need to be said)."'' The issue is that all the important things are sprinkled throughout your explanation and '''can't''' be skipped. 
:::If you do insist on being as verbose as you are, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a TL;DR? Just a thought.--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 13:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Ahoy there, from IPv4-land, again. I think you're misreading something. You're talking about Talk: comments being overlong. I'm not sure anyone else is.
::::The OP says "...for '''explanations''' which are considered excessively verbose..." (my emphasis added). Only in the more recent "...would you please consider posting it on the talk page and..." suggestion is OP mentioning Talk:, and that's as a suggestion of doing that ''instead'' of being wordy in the Explanation.
::::I also disagree that my two highlighted additions ({{diff|410387|this}} and {{diff|410328|this}}) are overlong. Not as short as they could be, but only significantly so by not saying things I wanted to say. Whether I not I should have, is another matter.
::::Not much more to add, that hasn't already been mentioned. So I won't. Have a nice day! [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::((Hi, I'm not the above IPv4, but I am someone you used as an example. And I could respond to DSB's comments (that edit-conflicted with me writing the following), as I think they are arguments directed against me too, but that would add ''another half hour or more of writing, down-editing, reviewing, adding back in things that I should ''not'' have edited out, etc. So, instead, I'm just prepending this little blurb. But it seems like I'm of a like mind/''modus operandi'' as the other protagonist here. Though was reluctant to jump in to comment on this 'suggestion' right from the start. But here I am now. Sorry!))
:::No, sorry. You're still being subjective there, as already said by someone else. If people add more information, it's generally because they think that such information is missing. Or responding to comments (or interpretations) from others who hadn't already 'got it'.
:::I absolutely don't mind if my attempts to explain something are re-edited to be less wordy than I might have left them, though. That's the nature of wiki-editing. And, if someone removes or wrongly paraphrases something (of mine, or anyone else), I reserve the right to go back and make it correct once more.
:::The exception is with Talk comments:
:::#Other than totally removing something that totally violates site policy, you do ''not'' remove or edit someone else's Talk contribution, beyond any peripheral formatting (e.g. adding a missing signature, correcting a clear indentation misalignment or, with very great care, making it more readable as far as newlines, bulletpoints, tabulation, etc, if the OA cocked that up) and ''never'' change the substantive text... even for spelling.
:::#Things written in Talk are not part of the Explanation and should not be assumed to be read by anyone reading the Explanation.
:::#They also need not be as 'perfect' as one might try to write in an Explanation, be they either more jokey, full of spelling/grammar errors. This is not the "voice of the site, for we are legion", but individually attributable (more or less) voices that may display confusion, authoritativeness, malapropriate terminology, the desire to say "FIRST!" and/or complaints about everyone else doing any or all the the other things.
:::#Should someone ''happen'' to make a cogent point in Talk, it almost never is suitable to just copypaste their exact words (less the signature - if there was any!) into the main Explanation (or even within the 'incomplete'-notification. If they thought it was ready for the Explanation, they'd have written it there, and probably used a different phrase (I write from experience, here!)
:::#And there is very little reason to go through the collaborative editing process on Talk, with multiple versions (and critiques) of the 'concept' text being left for everyone to see all the false starts and mis-steps and the like. When the ''very idea'' of the main Wiki page is that it's a collaborative editing place that gets refined to the best result it can be (or, maybe, just one of the 'least worst' ones), without all the messy re-versioning details on show (but still there in the History, for the curious).
:::(And I note that DSB highlit one of ''my'' Talk contributions, above, as an example of overloquaciousness... Strangely, one that {{diff|410161|looked somewhat appreciated}}, unless that was actually intended as sarcasm, but lacked sufficient markup to reveal that as its purpose. Yes, it was significantly longer than the first response (which I think was good, as far as it went), but I thought that *maybe* a few more details wouldn't go amiss. In leiu of possible further questions that might have occured without.)
:::So, no. I reject your request to 'discuss things in Talk, i advance' any time I think I might not be adding a perfectly cromulant smattering of knowledge. I know that I will never write laconicallg enough to please every reader, especially without making it so streamlined that someone else will have to request (or fulfill) further expansion to it.
:::"Should we have a category"? Maybe. What are you thinking? Some template-led thing, used either like the {{template|Actual citation needed}} or {{template|incomplete}} ones, or somewhere betwixt the two, in application/functionality? What if some adds an <code><nowiki>{{Excessive verbosity}}</nowiki></code> tag and someone disagrees enough to remove it again? Are we back to arguing it out in Talk (like we do already), and/or whole paragraphs being pre-emptively removed (like is done already), or are we supposed to stop doing that and instead populate the tag with 'reason=' information?
:::Not entirely sure what the "community portal link to it" is about, though. Adding a way to get to [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals#Excessive verbosity|this section]]? Or adding a link to each tagged example ''from'' this section?
:::The observation, in several ways, needs further explanation and elaboration (totally unintended, but I ''just'' realised how ironic that is!). Can I (and my fellow word-technicians, such as the prior responder) possibly shave off a word or two? Probably. But I personally try (amongst other editing issues) to address inconsistencies and gaps in information that I see have not yet been addressed. If someone wants to improve on what I add, within a comic page, then they can. Better something there, imperfect, than just lacking because of the possibility of some arbitrary word-/paragraph-limit being breached due to my 'interference'. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.33|82.132.236.33]] 14:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I created [[[[:Category:Excessive verbosity]]]] and mentioned it at the end of [[explain xkcd:Community portal]]. I have a plan to fill it with initially the 20-30 worst offending explanations using AI, but I need to run some experiments first. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:What actual criteria will assess the issue of "worst offending", can I ask? I ask this seriously, but I might as well tell you that I predict that you won't have a cogent answer. Especially if you're going for the same enumeration as that graph that was created. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::Whether the text is too verbose to serve the readers as a copyedit for brevity could. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 03:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2026-04-18T08:59:48Z

Liv2splain: /* Excessive verbosity */ Category:Excessive verbosity

Category:Excessive verbosity

2026-04-18T08:58:17Z

Liv2splain: illustrating graph

[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Overall, the problem has been trending down since around 2015.]]
Some explanations grow so large in size that they need to be copyedited for brevity to best serve readers. Please add "<nowiki>[[Category:Excessive verbosity]]</nowiki>" to such explanations and help review those, as shown below.

3001: Temperature Scales

2026-04-18T08:51:46Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ no source, not important for the explanation

{{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==
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 1745 {{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}} scale, which uses the same gradations 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. [[1643: Degrees]] provides helpful tips for choosing whether to use Celsius or Fahrenheit. See also [[1923: Felsius]].

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Randall's notes
! scope="col" | Cursed ness
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | 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 kelvin. 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
| Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees as Celsius do, but 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 kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they 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 (amount of ''degrees'' in a circle) were favored in science over powers of 10, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose to base 0° on 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, and - as Randall notes - some retroactive justification coined that claims 0°F to 100°F as covering the entire range of temperatures humans would encounter in daily life. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially used only in the U.S., 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 the Celsius scale; 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), created by {{w|William Rankine}} in 1859, is to Fahrenheit what the Kelvin scale is to Celsius: an absolute temperature scale. 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>
<center>Rankine = Fahrenheit + 459.67</center>
[[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 °N symbol. Unfortunately, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}} because his scale is nonlinear. [https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales His scale] used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, and 34ºN, rapidly boiling water. Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 37 × Newton / 12 if Newton ≤ 12; 63 × (Newton – 12) / 22 + 37 if Newton > 12</center>
<center>Newton = 12 × Celsius / 37 if Celsius ≤ 37; 22 × (Celsius – 37) / 63 + 12 if Celsius > 37</center>
Very few other than Newton ever used this scale, but it [https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43 did appear] on commercial thermometers around 1758. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) jokes about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
! {{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 inconsistent.
<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 actually called Wedgwood, without the second 'e', but is spelled in the comic as "Wedgewood".
|-
! Galen
| –4?
| 4??
| Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?)
| 4/–4
| The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature [https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml around 180 AD] 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. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0; 78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22; 4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 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, and cursedness itself, is not clear. 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 through 1.42×1032K, the [https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198 maximum attainable physical temperature], will be negative on this scale. 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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 the Celsius scale at 0 and 100:
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 differ from Celsius ones by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverge much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
! °X '''(title text)'''
| 42.9
| 151.4
| In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' {{asic}} 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.
| N/A
| 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 [https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature July 21, 1983]. The average surface temperature as of 2023, [https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the most recent available], is 14.8°C (58.6°F.) The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), [https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature recorded] on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to average temperature records [https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records increasing almost every year] as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Some temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! [https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature Recommended] {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}
! [https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety Recommended] {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}
! [https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/ Typical] warm bath temperature
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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
| 7.1 °N
| 0 °N
| 34 °N
| 12 °N
| 0.8 °N
| –5.8 °N
| 12.7 °N
| 26 °N
|-
! Wedgwood
| –7.71 °W
| –8 °W
| –6.7 °W
| –7.52 °W
| –7.97 °W
| –8.23 °W
| –7.49 °W
| –7 °W
|-
! Galen
| 0
| –4
| 4
| 0.8
| –3.5
| –7.3
| 0.9
| 2.8
|-
! ''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
|-
! Felsius
| 47
| 16
| 156
| 67.8
| 19.5
| –9.2
| 70.6
| 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: "Unit", "Water freezing point", "Water boiling point", "Notes", and "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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]][[Category:Weather]]

Category:Excessive verbosity

2026-04-18T08:42:31Z

Liv2splain:

Some explanations grow so large in size that they need to be copyedited for brevity to best serve readers. Please add "<nowiki>[[Category:Excessive verbosity]]</nowiki>" to such explanations and help review those, as shown below.

explain xkcd:Community portal

2026-04-18T08:41:47Z

Liv2splain: Category:Incomplete explanations and Category:Excessive verbosity

'''Welcome to the [[explain xkcd:Community Portal|Community Portal]]'''. This set of pages is used to discuss how the [[explain xkcd]] wiki works and is divided into five sections. Please use the table below to find the most appropriate section to post in, or post in the miscellaneous section.
{{notice2|If you can't create '''your user page''', please see [[Explain xkcd:Editor FAQ#Why can't I create my user page and upload images?|this explanation]]. Thanks!}}
{{Community portal}}
[[Template:Community portal|V]][[Template talk:Community portal|T]][https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Template:Community_portal&action=edit E]

==Tools==
Here are a few tools to start you out:
* [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tutorial|Wikipedia's Editing Tutorial]] is a great place to start if you've never edited a wiki before.
* For testing purposes, use our [[Explain xkcd:Sandbox|sandbox page]] or create [[Special:Mypage/Sandbox|your own personal sandbox]].
* If you're interested in editing this wiki, check out our [[Explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|FAQ page]].
* Whenever you add a message or comment, always remember to sign it with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or by clicking [[File:Button sig.png]] in the toolbar.

==Community projects==
* Please help out with our [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|incomplete explanations]].
* Some explanations grow so large in size that they need to be copyedited for brevity to best serve readers. Please add "[[[[:Category:Excessive verbosity]]]]" to such explanations and help review those.

[[File:Header.png|800px|center]]

Category:Excessive verbosity

2026-04-18T08:40:08Z

Liv2splain:

Category:Excessive verbosity

2026-04-18T08:39:18Z

Liv2splain: Created page with "Some explanations grow so large in size that they need to be copyedited for brevity to best serve readers. Please add ":Category:Excessive verbosity" to such articles and..."

Some explanations grow so large in size that they need to be copyedited for brevity to best serve readers. Please add "[[:Category:Excessive verbosity]]" to such articles and help review those.

Talk:3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T18:36:34Z

Liv2splain: reply

I'm not brave enough to actually add an explanation myself, quite yet, but ... I guess this is a reference to the fact(?) that Europa looks a bit like a creme brulee', when viewed from space? https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/moons/europa/ It does look tasty ... :) [[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:I suspect it's more due to the need to drill through a couple miles of ice to get to the ocean; much like breaking through the sugar crust on a creme broule! [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to the people at 9AM Post things on another website to try and explain XKCD Comics. -Forgotten_Mail {{unsigned ip|172.69.33.177|13:30, 13 November 2024}}

The comically large spoon!!!!!!!!!! I love those. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Don't be sucked in! Protect yourself! https://rathergood.com/2017/02/10/spoonguard/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.105|141.101.99.105]] 10:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Crème brûlée is from France, France is in Europe, the moon is called Europa" connection is a bit of a stretch...? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 18:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Eh, it's the same etymology. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.230|172.69.134.230]] 11:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The issue of the continent and the moon coming from the same classical source (for different reasons) rather stretches the link between the dish (from the country, from the country's region/continent, from the region of Greece, ''possibly'' from the pantheon) and the moon (directly from the pantheon). I agree with the 'stretch' assessment. You can probably find easier and more plausible (but wrong) links worth alluding to than that, which relies upon several steps and a ''possible'' polysemic pair of original links. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 12:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::From an American perspective, Europe might seem like a distant, mysterious place that you might want to send a probe to to gather interesting information, and also somewhere that crème brûlée comes from. It's also potentially confusable (by the easily confused) with Europa. That seems like a reasonable enough connection to make to me. The mention of France is essentially by the by.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.107|172.71.26.107]] 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It keeps getting said that "Europa is named after Europe", '''which is not correct''' (etymology, BTW, not entomology). I shall have to re-restore some other changes made to the same paragraph in rapid succession whilst I was trying to explain this. Bear with me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.195|172.70.160.195]] 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::...You don't care, do you. You just keep putting it back in. SMH. Have fun. Someone else will probably be along to correct you ''again'' later. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.92|141.101.68.92]] 15:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"only a spoonful" moment 💔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone should add a reference to XKCD's previous mention of a Planetary Protection Officer: https://what-if.xkcd.com/117/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.221|162.158.42.221]] 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

JUICE mentioned!!! cracker ham cheese cracker ham cheese cracker [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 07:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list from NASA about spacecraft instrument deployment failures, they are remarkably frequent: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210020397/downloads/Alphonzo%20Stewart-%20Final%20Paper.pdf [[Special:Contributions/162.158.19.50|162.158.19.50]] 13:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to have a conversation about how the insertion orbit plan is so chaotic that there is a significant chance that the probe might crash in to and pierce the crust of Europa. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.56|162.158.187.56]] 14:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:...and if so, what's the likelihood of hitting just the right angle to scrape off a tasty bit with that spoon? [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 16:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::What would you like it to be? I can't step on butterflies, but I can certainly act according to the purest form of free will by strapping a noise bridge diode to my corpus callosum. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 16:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well we just need Elon to lock in the plan that if it crashes then it automatically becomes a sample return mission, and the first SolarCity sales rep to break out +150% of their quota gets to be the one to crash it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.130|162.158.42.130]] 15:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::What part of "Attempt No Landing There" is unclear to you? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can ''not'' believe I got ChatGPT to make this for me:
{{cot|You have been warned}}

Europa was this smart, ambitious woman just trying to make it out there in the Mediterranean startup scene. She had her plans, her own thing going on, some solid friends, and a bright future. She wasn’t looking for anything too complicated; she just wanted to keep her options open and figure out her next big move.

Enter Zeus. Now, picture him as that intense CEO type—big, powerful, kind of legendary for his influence (and his *questionable* reputation). He’s been around the block a few times, always looking for the next exciting project or, well… person. Zeus saw Europa, and she was exactly his type: sharp, resourceful, had a lot of potential. He was like, "Yeah, I need *that* in my portfolio."

But Zeus was a little extra with his tactics. Instead of just, you know, scheduling a coffee chat or reaching out on LinkedIn like a normal person, he came up with this elaborate scheme. He disguised himself as this beautiful white bull (yeah, Zeus was *that* guy who would make things way more complicated than necessary). He wandered down to the shore near Europa and her friends, looking majestic and mysterious, and let her come to him.

Europa, understandably, was like, "This bull is kind of weirdly friendly and actually pretty cool." She got curious, went closer, and Zeus played it super smooth, staying calm and approachable. When she got comfortable enough, she even climbed onto his back for a ride—just for fun! I mean, who hasn’t hopped onto a crazy idea because it seemed cool at the time, right?

But then things got wild. Suddenly, Zeus took off, sprinting across the beach and straight into the sea. He didn’t just want to show her the local scene; he was taking her across the entire Mediterranean to Crete, like some super intense onboarding retreat she hadn’t signed up for. By the time they got there, she was probably exhausted, confused, and questioning her life choices.

And here’s the kicker: once they arrived, Zeus was like, “Oh hey, it’s me! Not just some chill bull—surprise, I’m Zeus.” At this point, Europa realized she was in way deeper than she’d ever expected. She ended up staying in Crete, becoming queen and building a legacy, which, sure, sounds great on paper. But you have to wonder if that’s what she really wanted in the first place, or if she was just swept up in the whirlwind of Zeus's charm and grand promises.

So, in the end, Europa's career ended up in a place she never saw coming. She became a name people would remember for centuries, but not necessarily on her own terms. It’s the classic millennial dilemma: she got a high-profile "role" with Zeus, but did she really get to build her own brand, or was she just another line in Zeus’s impressive (and very long) resume?

Maybe Europa would look back on this “opportunity” and think, “Did I even want this? Or did I just get pulled into someone else’s grand plan?” A classic case of getting lost in the allure of “networking,” and honestly, a pretty good reminder to always check out who’s really behind the bull.
{{cob}}
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.82|172.68.23.82]] "This bull is kind of weirdly friendly and actually pretty cool" 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:ChatGPT should have learned long ago that it's not cool to reproduce rape culture. But I guess AI just doesn't get better than its training material... [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 16:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::It is apparently aware of the issue:
:::"The myth of Zeus and Europa is problematic from a modern perspective, especially concerning consent. Europa willingly approaches and even climbs onto Zeus, who is disguised as a bull, suggesting an initial level of curiosity and comfort. However, Zeus’s sudden abduction of Europa—taking her across the sea to Crete and revealing his true identity only after they arrive—shows a disregard for her autonomy, as she never consented to go with him under those terms. Her actions are based on Zeus’s deception, and without knowing his true intentions, her choice was not fully informed. In Greek mythology, such abductions were common symbols of divine intervention, reflecting a worldview where gods often overpowered human agency, a stark contrast to today’s emphasis on consent and personal autonomy."
::The issue with Zeus's behavior was tempered by the story that he gave Europa a kingdom to rule and all the riches and luxuries that came with it. Isn't that the way bad boyfriends are excused in our day and age? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.143|172.70.211.143]] 17:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Like [https://krapopolis.fandom.com/wiki/Krapopolis#:~:text=Tyrannis%2C%20the%20mortal%20son%20of,self%2Ddestruction%20and%20questionable%20choices. King Tyrannis] in {{w|Krapopolis}}? All that glitters is not gold. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.93|172.68.22.93]] 18:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T18:31:24Z

Liv2splain: additional image

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT. Please consider deleting this tag too soon, but refrain from doing so.}}

[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary green dot. In gold is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in cyan is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in orange-red is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in magenta. Jupiter's largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}} is not shown, but its gravitational pull affects the ''Clipper's'' trajectory. A mission goal is to achieve a 6:1 {{w|orbital resonance}} with Europa by September 2034.[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Ozimek/publication/383115312_AAS_24-433_Europa_Clipper_Mission_Analysis_Pump_Down_Trajectory_Design/links/66bcd845311cbb094938dbd6/AAS-24-433-Europa-Clipper-Mission-Analysis-Pump-Down-Trajectory-Design.pdf] ]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in Florida on October 14, 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in April of 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water, which might contain living microbes.[https://europa.nasa.gov/why-europa/ingredients-for-life/] To sample this liquid, its crust (water ice) would need to be broken.

Europa's icy surface may be compared to the caramelized crust on the popular dessert {{w|crème brûlée}}, which is traditionally cracked with a spoon before eating. The caramel cream dessert is believed to have been [https://archive.org/details/lagastronomieaug00sabb/page/272/mode/2up invented in Europe]. In {{w|Greek mythology}}, Europa was a {{w|Phoenician}} princess who {{w|Zeus}}, the king of the gods, abducted after transforming himself into a bull. Both the continent Europe and Jupiter's moon were named after Europa. Thus [[Randall]] suggests the spacecraft might encounter crème brûlée, and has therefore been equipped with a spoon for the purpose of collecting samples, as spoons are the traditional {{w|tableware}} provided for eating such desserts.[https://europa.nasa.gov/mission/about/] Perhaps because the {{w|Cassini-Huygens}} probe, after landing on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan in January of 2005, found that its surface had what was described as [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan a "crème brûlée" consistency].

No such spoon is present on the ''Europa Clipper.''{{cn}} Its course is designed to avoid contact with Europa so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination by microorganisms from Earth}}. The spacecraft is, however, equipped with a magnetometer at the end of a 8.5 meter deployable boom. Deployable instruments on spacecraft have often failed to deploy correctly, so the successful deployment of any instrument is considered a cause for celebration.

<div style="display: flex; justify-content: center; align-items: center; margin: 1em 0;">
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_-_Perijove_45_(cropped).png|200px|alt=Europa]]
<div>Europa</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:2014_0531_Crème_brûlée_Doi_Mae_Salong_(cropped).jpg|200px|alt=Crème brûlée]]
<div>Crème brûlée</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_Clipper_spacecraft_model.png|200px|alt=The Europa Clipper spacecraft]]
<div>The ''Europa Clipper'' spacecraft</div>
</div>
</div>

The title text expands on the joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of Europa to Earth. However, the ''Europa Clipper'' is not a {{w|sample-return mission}}.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a very large spoon extending beneath, longer than the span of both solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
The Clipper spacecraft was at one point to be developed alongside a lander, which was later dropped from being part of the same (or very closely partnered) mission. The latest version of the {{w|Europa Lander}} proposal is far behind the Clipper in implementation, not yet even being guaranteed funding.

Any actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the related plans for exploration}}, along with the possibility of digging deep enough into the ice to finally confirm or dismiss some of the more interesting theories about the world concerned.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."'' Contrary to the suggestion of the comic, no landing or any other physical interaction beyond observation of the surface of Europa is planned.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T18:20:44Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ images

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT. Please consider deleting this tag too soon, but refrain from doing so.}}

[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary green dot. In gold is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in cyan is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in orange-red is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in magenta. Jupiter's largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}} is not shown, but its gravitational pull affects the ''Clipper's'' trajectory. A mission goal is to achieve a 6:1 {{w|orbital resonance}} with Europa by September 2034.[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Ozimek/publication/383115312_AAS_24-433_Europa_Clipper_Mission_Analysis_Pump_Down_Trajectory_Design/links/66bcd845311cbb094938dbd6/AAS-24-433-Europa-Clipper-Mission-Analysis-Pump-Down-Trajectory-Design.pdf] ]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in Florida on October 14, 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in April of 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water, which might contain living microbes.[https://europa.nasa.gov/why-europa/ingredients-for-life/] To sample this liquid, its crust (water ice) would need to be broken.

Europa's icy surface may be compared to the caramelized crust on the popular dessert {{w|crème brûlée}}, which is traditionally cracked with a spoon before eating. The caramel cream dessert is believed to have been [https://archive.org/details/lagastronomieaug00sabb/page/272/mode/2up invented in Europe]. In {{w|Greek mythology}}, Europa was a {{w|Phoenician}} princess who {{w|Zeus}}, the king of the gods, abducted after transforming himself into a bull. Both the continent Europe and Jupiter's moon were named after Europa. Thus [[Randall]] suggests the spacecraft might encounter crème brûlée, and has therefore been equipped with a spoon for the purpose of collecting samples, as spoons are the traditional {{w|tableware}} provided for eating such desserts.[https://europa.nasa.gov/mission/about/] Perhaps because the {{w|Cassini-Huygens}} probe, after landing on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan in January of 2005, found that its surface had what was described as [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan a "crème brûlée" consistency].

No such spoon is present on the ''Europa Clipper.''{{cn}} Its course is designed to avoid contact with Europa so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination by microorganisms from Earth}}. The spacecraft is, however, equipped with a magnetometer at the end of a 8.5 meter deployable boom. Deployable instruments on spacecraft have often failed to deploy correctly, so the successful deployment of any instrument is considered a cause for celebration.

<div style="display: flex; justify-content: center; align-items: center; margin: 1em 0;">
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:Europa_-_Perijove_45_(cropped).png|200px|alt=Europa]]
<div>Europa</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 1em;">
[[File:2014_0531_Crème_brûlée_Doi_Mae_Salong_(cropped).jpg|200px|alt=Crème brûlée]]
<div>Crème brûlée</div>
</div>
</div>

The title text expands on the joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of Europa to Earth. However, the ''Europa Clipper'' is not a {{w|sample-return mission}}.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a very large spoon extending beneath, longer than the span of both solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
The Clipper spacecraft was at one point to be developed alongside a lander, which was later dropped from being part of the same (or very closely partnered) mission. The latest version of the {{w|Europa Lander}} proposal is far behind the Clipper in implementation, not yet even being guaranteed funding.

Any actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the related plans for exploration}}, along with the possibility of digging deep enough into the ice to finally confirm or dismiss some of the more interesting theories about the world concerned.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."'' Contrary to the suggestion of the comic, no landing or any other physical interaction beyond observation of the surface of Europa is planned.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T23:43:12Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ not sure this helps explain anything

{{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 1745 {{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees 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 kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially used only in the U.S., 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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"{{acn}} || 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}} because his scale is nonlinear. His scale used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, 34ºN, rapidly boiling water.[https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales] Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 37 × Newton / 12 if Newton ≤ 12; or 63 × (Newton – 12) / 22 + 37 if Newton > 12.</center>
<center>Newton = 12 × Celsius / 37 if Celsius ≤ 37; or 22 × (Celsius – 37) / 63 + 12 if Celsius > 37.</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43] The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0; or 78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0.</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22; or 4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 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, and cursedness itself, is not clear. 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 through 1.42×1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15.</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to high and average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},[https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records] Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for to everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 || 7.1 °N || 0 °N || 34 °N || 12 °N || 0.8 °N || –5.8 °N || 12.7 °N || 26 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –4 || 4 || 0.8 || –3.5 || –7.3 || 0.9 || 2.8
|-
| ''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
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, Water freezing point, Water boiling point, Notes, and 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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T23:41:57Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ oops center

{{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 1745 {{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees 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 kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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"{{acn}} || 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}} because his scale is nonlinear. His scale used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, 34ºN, rapidly boiling water.[https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales] Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 37 × Newton / 12 if Newton ≤ 12; or 63 × (Newton – 12) / 22 + 37 if Newton > 12.</center>
<center>Newton = 12 × Celsius / 37 if Celsius ≤ 37; or 22 × (Celsius – 37) / 63 + 12 if Celsius > 37.</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43] The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0; or 78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0.</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22; or 4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 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, and cursedness itself, is not clear. 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 through 1.42×1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15.</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to high and average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},[https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records] Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for to everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 || 7.1 °N || 0 °N || 34 °N || 12 °N || 0.8 °N || –5.8 °N || 12.7 °N || 26 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –4 || 4 || 0.8 || –3.5 || –7.3 || 0.9 || 2.8
|-
| ''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
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, Water freezing point, Water boiling point, Notes, and 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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

File:Temperature Scales.png

2024-10-26T23:40:27Z

Liv2splain: Liv2splain uploaded a new version of File:Temperature Scales.png

All the scales from [[3001: Temperature Scales]] plus [[1923: Felsius]].

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T23:39:03Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ fix Newton conversions, again

{{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 1745 {{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees 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 kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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"{{acn}} || 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}} because his scale is nonlinear. His scale used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, 34ºN, rapidly boiling water.[https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales] Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 37 × Newton / 12 if Newton ≤ 12; or 63 × (Newton – 12) / 22 + 37 if Newton > 12.</center>
Newton = 12 × Celsius / 37 if Celsius ≤ 37; or 22 × (Celsius – 37) / 63 + 12 if Celsius > 37.</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43] The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0; or 78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0.</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22; or 4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 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, and cursedness itself, is not clear. 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 through 1.42×1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15.</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to high and average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},[https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records] Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for to everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 || 7.1 °N || 0 °N || 34 °N || 12 °N || 0.8 °N || –5.8 °N || 12.7 °N || 26 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –4 || 4 || 0.8 || –3.5 || –7.3 || 0.9 || 2.8
|-
| ''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
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, Water freezing point, Water boiling point, Notes, and 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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T23:37:26Z

Liv2splain: /* Examples */ fix Newtons, again

{{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 1745 {{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees 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 kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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"{{acn}} || 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}} because his scale is nonlinear. His scale used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, 34ºN, rapidly boiling water.[https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales] Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 12 × Newton / 37 if Newton ≤ 12; or 22 × (Newton – 12) / 63 + 37 if Newton > 12.</center>
<center>Newton = 37 × Celsius / 12 if Celsius ≤ 37; or 63 × (Celsius – 37) / 22 + 12 if Celsius > 37.</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43] The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0; or 78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0.</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22; or 4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 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, and cursedness itself, is not clear. 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 through 1.42×1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15.</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to high and average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},[https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records] Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for to everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 || 7.1 °N || 0 °N || 34 °N || 12 °N || 0.8 °N || –5.8 °N || 12.7 °N || 26 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –4 || 4 || 0.8 || –3.5 || –7.3 || 0.9 || 2.8
|-
| ''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
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, Water freezing point, Water boiling point, Notes, and 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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T23:32:15Z

Liv2splain: /* Transcript */ wikicase

{{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 1745 {{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees 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 kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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"{{acn}} || 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}} because his scale is nonlinear. His scale used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, 34ºN, rapidly boiling water.[https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales] Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 12 × Newton / 37 if Newton ≤ 12; or 22 × (Newton – 12) / 63 + 37 if Newton > 12.</center>
<center>Newton = 37 × Celsius / 12 if Celsius ≤ 37; or 63 × (Celsius – 37) / 22 + 12 if Celsius > 37.</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43] The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0; or 78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0.</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22; or 4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 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, and cursedness itself, is not clear. 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 through 1.42×1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15.</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to high and average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},[https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records] Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for to everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 || 67.8 °N || 0 °N || 34 °N || 114.1 °N || 7.7 °N || –55.5 °N || 12.7 °N || 26.0 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –4 || 4 || 0.8 || –3.5 || –7.3 || 0.9 || 2.8
|-
| ''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
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, Water freezing point, Water boiling point, Notes, and 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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T23:17:44Z

Liv2splain: these are the same section

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Furthermore, should it be 0°R or just 0R (no °)? I've been told that Kelvin doesn't use degrees because it's an absolute scale, so a) is this true and b) should it apply to Rankine? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.211.54|172.71.211.54]] 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Kelvin is rather strange, for reasons never totally explained. It's "the Kelvin scale", but the unit is "kelvin" and I never got on with the official absence of the ° symbol by the "K". I was always taught to ''say'' "degrees kelvin" (for temperatures) and "kelvin degrees" (for a change/range of temperature) in order to not cause confusion and technical misunderstandings (''perhaps'' easier to contextualise when down in writing?) but no accounting for taste, or possibly official laziness.
::On the basis that Rankine is not kelvin (whatever the reason for how kelvin is what it is), I would use the degrees, as I would any other absolute scale (whether it be an adjusted form of °Rø or °Ré or whatever else might be invented), because kelvin is just inexplicably (to me, and to others) ''the'' exception to absolutely every other reasonably equivalent contemporary measure, including capitalisation. YMMV! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.2|172.70.162.2]] 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::0ºRa, not 0ºR. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.157|172.70.206.157]] 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can be either. Perhaps best to use °Ra (in ambiguous context) to avoid ''possible'' confusion with °Ré and °Rø, but probably less important when both those two are also listed alongside (except for wondering what, if anything, is a typo, bad handwriting or other error). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.12|172.69.194.12]] 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's easy if you think about it like "meter". You usually say "meters" not "the meter scale" although both are correct. Scientists and engineers who use them daily call them "kelvins", not "kelvin" unless following a number. You wouldn't say "We need to measure this room in meter." Someone keeps reverting me on this, and they're wrong, but I don't care much anymore. I'll probably fix it next month or something. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::"Americans typically measure temperatures in Fahrenheits, whilst Europeans use Celsiusses..." hmm, no, that doesn't sound right at all. (Celciuses? No, wait. Celcii! Masculine Nominative Singular changed to the Plural, if I've got my Latin declensions right. But still doesn't sound right. Maybe I also need to use "Fahrenheit''en''"..? Wait, wasn't he born Polish, so that means...)
:::::Seriously, I think that if you talk of "measured in [the scale of] Celsius" you should probably talk of "... in [the scale of] Kelvin" (using the capital for the scale). According to the {{w|Kelvin#Orthography|orthography}}, you'd be right to specify "50 kelvins" (c.f. "50 degrees [whatever non-Kelvin measure]" ''or'' "50 [whatever non-Kelvin measure] degrees" for a range), but talking ''about'' the scale would definitely call for a simple "Kelvin". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC) (PS., I'd also say "metre(s)", but then I'm British... which might also colour (or 'color') my personal grammatical sensibilities. But oh what fun you lot seem to have had with this whole issue!)
::::::The units are ''degrees'' Celsius or Fahrenheit, but just kelvins, like watts or ohms or amps. It's explained in great detail in the article already. Fun?! Perhaps you should talk to someone who uses kelvins on a regular basis before you impose your imagined usage over the course of a half dozen reverts. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.73|172.70.206.73]] 23:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Isn't that what was just said? Though I'd say "It's 50 kelvin", apparently the 'right' way to say that is "It's 50 kelvins" (also "It went up by 50 kelvin"/"it went up by 50 kelvins"... that latter sounds off to me, and isn't how I've ever used it, but the orthography link suggests it's right).
:::::::But then one can talk about measuring temperatures (or temperature ranges) ''in'' Celsius or Fahrenheit or Delisle or whatever, because you're saying you're measuring things in ''the scale of'' whatever-it-is, so you can equally say you're measuring things in (the scale of) Kelvin. Not too different from saying that you're using the meter or the foot or the kiloparsec or the nanosecond or the coulomb-squared-per-barn or even the fortnight-per-firkin-furlong if you ever so wish. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.150|172.68.205.150]] 23:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Tell me you never talk about kelvins in everyday work without telling me you never talk about kelvins in everyday work. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.98|172.68.22.98]] 13:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about Tnew=0.1694×degC+46.25; degC=(Tnew-46.25)/0.1694, where 0 is absolute zero and 50 is room temperature? (Freezing point of water: 46.25; Boiling point of water: 63.19) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.248|162.158.186.248]] 05:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I would absolutely pull the trigger on an additional column if I didn't think it would further screw up what are most probably extremely cursed mobile portrait renderings of the table. How about a Trivia section? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is that the brine thing was an ad-hoc justification when the scale was presented to the Royal Society. It may have seemed less cursed. But yes, there's a BIG reason for using 32 or 64, halving a distance is trivial and as an instument maker, Fahrenheit would have found that attractive. Mind you, I'm getting this from the Straight Dope, so I could be a dope getting it straight. https://www.straightdope.com/21344240/did-cecil-err-in-explaining-the-significance-of-zero-fahrenheit [[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.189|162.158.10.189]] 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then, regarding {{diff|353895|this edit}} (and the original IP-led one(s) that even made huge and revert-necessary changes), was it ''really'' intended to get rid of whole paragraphs such as "Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures[...]" that had nothing to do with the numeric adjustments? When I see that, I see mistakes (especially in light of the "clobber" that happened, where typos reappeared and other things became unexplained/worse-explained once more). — Basically, if your edit summary is nust about updating baseline data, and the resulting maths, I don't expect (maybe good, maybe bad) edits to unrelated bits. Or I may (and have) presumed accidental (or deliberate?) carelessness that I'd rather not try to go back to first principles to re-re-check for the editor concerned. That is all. At least try to justify enough of your edit in its own way, even if it means diving in several times to get enough space to summarise your whole "why" to each tweak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.104|172.68.186.104]] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I have re-removed the removals piecemeal with individual edit summaries for clarity. Many of them involved detailed obscure technical misunderstandings, such as whether the Vostok and Death Valley measurements were surface temperatures (the WMO says they are, and there are the WMO's photos of the observation stations in the linked references now) which combined with the incorrect yearly average global mean temperature, added five paragraphs unnecessarily. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.152|172.68.23.152]] 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Definitely some points made (some incorrect, "ne er" was ''obviously'' more just a basic typo of "never", not my attempt to use "ne'er" for no good reason, and my attempt to fix that and some other bits ran into a set of Edit Conflicts ...hope I caught all the remaining ones when I finally could try again on the settled-down page) and I've blended answers to your objections in while giving back what useful nuances (from a number of past editors, only a couple of bits even having had my own hand primarilly behind them as they were) really needn't have been removed. I dispute the terms of your objections (as summarised) behind {{diff|353937|some changes}}, but have rephrased based upon what I ''think'' you mean, giving you should prefer and wouldn't feel the need to be as randomly censorious about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.173|172.69.195.173]] 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Figure 1 in https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature does not seem like a random walk to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.118|172.69.33.118]] 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Added the "Random Walk" because, ignoring long-term trends, year-on-year the measured average is going to blip up and down for all kinds of reasons (physical and measuring issues, both), so it will be lower than expected or higher than expected compared to the smoother track it actually takes on a rolling average. I think one of the versions I replaced had partial suggestion that the average was effectively constant (in °C, not just °X), and while records adjusted every now and then (or every year!), it all just rather settled down at the °X midpoint. Which it doesn't. (And also that it's ''possible'' that Average and Minimum change such that the projected Absolute Zero ''doesn't'' move so much, one year, although mostly the fulcrum will be closer to 0°X rather than 0K.)
::::But I've yet to see what's been changed (maybe improved) since I was last looking at it. Maybe this is an out-of-date explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.202|172.70.90.202]] 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

When I originally designed my unit conversion app I almost made a unit up that was based on the ideal gas law and one mass pound of said gas in a one cubic foot container. It seemed more quixotic than anything else so I didn't pull the trigger on it. Maybe I should have.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.33|172.70.111.33]] 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is x based off of elon musk changing twitter to X? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.50|172.71.254.50]] 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Too many things were already "X" (X marks the spot, Planet X, The X-Men, Xmas...), I see no need to presume that Elon has successfully claimed ownership of one entire letter of the alphabet due to a car-crash business deal and a self-obsessive personality. To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes an X is just an X", and with no references at all to anything Twitter-like I don't see any other intent than just as a traditional placeholder character. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.209|172.70.90.209]] 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ummm... why do we have the Explanation give the idea that the record highest global temperature is rising ''every year'' (or almost), when the actual reference temperature that the Explanation (and calculation) uses (with supporting reference to wikipedia) was apparently in 1913? I think we've been confused by the ''average'' global temperature rising year-on-year, but somewhat hit the buffers on what (non-controversial) highest just-off-the-ground air temperature we can actually currently get (at least without much stranger solar activity starting to dominate).
 Incidentally, plotted against years, this means that the above-average temperature gradient is lessening over time, and the below-average gradient (excepting any future surprises at Vostok) is increasing over time... making me wonder if we had a time when °X was completely linear (50°X was precisely central to 0°X and 100°X, with no inflection point forced). Not going to follow thaat idea up, as probably you'd need a historical record of records that went back to before a reasonable global accuracy/completion of data was available. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.224|162.158.33.224]] 17:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

== Division by zero ==

I saw this in an edit summary: "10/0 is not ∞, it's also an error, not NaN according to the IEEE. It's closer to {+∞, -∞} than NaN but it's still neither because you can't make limits work"

Actually, IEEE floating point 10/0 can be an error, +∞, or NaN depending on the rounding mode. This is one of the reasons why mathemeticians don't appreciate the IEEE as much as they might. Division by zero is strictly undefined because of the problems with limits alluded to in the summary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdg1yn1SgE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.66|108.162.245.66]] 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:"When considering division by zero through limits, assigning {+∞, -∞} as potential results is insufficient because limits require consistency and well-defined behavior. In the case of dividing a number by values approaching zero, the results differ depending on whether zero is approached from the positive or negative direction. As a divisor approaches zero from the positive side, the quotient grows towards +∞, and from the negative side, it tends towards -∞. Since limits must converge to a single value for consistency, this disparity leads to an undefined result. Moreover, in many mathematical contexts, infinity is not a number but rather a concept describing unbounded growth, meaning operations involving infinity, like addition or multiplication, are not well-defined in the same way as with finite numbers. This inconsistency in approaching zero prevents {+∞, -∞} from being an adequate solution set for division by zero. Defining division by zero as infinity would create contradictions in both arithmetic and algebraic contexts, as it disrupts fundamental properties like continuity and field structures in mathematics. Hence, division by zero remains undefined to preserve mathematical rigor and coherence."
:[Chat Gippity 4o] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://imgflip.com/i/7yd7gz [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.131|172.71.150.131]] 09:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Examples section table values? ==

Someone please double-check the <s>Trivia</s> ''Examples'' section temperatures. I am not convinced they are entirely correct or consistent. I'm least sure about the Galen row. And Wedgwood obviously needs more digits of precision. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.28|162.158.41.28]] 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Newton scale isn't linear: see https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales and https://instrulearning.com/temperature/temperature-scales/ ... not sure how we should address this in the framework of the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.64|162.158.42.64]] 22:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:Fixed for the nonlinearities of Newton and Galen scales. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T23:16:24Z

Liv2splain: /* Examples */ fix Newton and Galen as nonlinear scales, but actually calculating them this time

{{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 1745 {{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. They use the same degrees 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 kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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"{{acn}} || 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}} because his scale is nonlinear. His scale used three fixed-points: 0ºN, the temperature of air when water begins to freeze, 12ºN, the heat of blood in the human body, 34ºN, rapidly boiling water.[https://www.whipplemuseum.cam.ac.uk/explore-whipple-collections/meteorology/early-thermometers-and-temperature-scales] Therefore:
<center>Celsius = 12 × Newton / 37 if Newton ≤ 12; or 22 × (Newton – 12) / 63 + 37 if Newton > 12.</center>
<center>Newton = 37 × Celsius / 12 if Celsius ≤ 37; or 63 × (Celsius – 37) / 22 + 12 if Celsius > 37.</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43] The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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. Assuming his extremes were those points, Galen's scale is also nonlinear:
<center>Celsius = 22 × (Galen + 4) / 4 if Galen ≤ 0; or 78 × Galen / 4 + 22 if Galen > 0.</center>
<center>Galen = 4 × Celsius / 22 – 4 if Celsius ≤ 22; or 4 × (Celsius – 22) / 78 if Celsius > 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, and cursedness itself, is not clear. 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 through 1.42×1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15.</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to high and average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},[https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records] Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for to everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 || 67.8 °N || 0 °N || 34 °N || 114.1 °N || 7.7 °N || –55.5 °N || 12.7 °N || 26.0 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –4 || 4 || 0.8 || –3.5 || –7.3 || 0.9 || 2.8
|-
| ''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
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

: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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

File:Temperature Scales.png

2024-10-26T23:09:58Z

Liv2splain: Liv2splain uploaded a new version of File:Temperature Scales.png

All the scales from [[3001: Temperature Scales]] plus [[1923: Felsius]].

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T16:09:41Z

Liv2splain: /* Examples */ from #1923

{{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same degrees 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 kelvins are 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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. So, as a linear appproximation:
<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.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius – 22) / 100) × 8</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 through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50.0; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.0</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8</center>

Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange core {{w|human body temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 °W || –6.70 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –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 scale || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16</center>

==Transcript==

: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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T16:05:52Z

Liv2splain: /* Examples */ Felsius conversion formulas

{{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same degrees 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 kelvins are 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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. So, as a linear appproximation:
<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.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius – 22) / 100) × 8</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 through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50.0; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.0</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8</center>

Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange core {{w|human body temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 °W || –6.70 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –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 scale || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| Felsius || 46.8 || 16.0 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16</center>

==Transcript==

: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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T15:14:38Z

Liv2splain: /* Examples */ Felsius conversions introduction/link

{{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same degrees 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 kelvins are 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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. So, as a linear appproximation:
<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.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius – 22) / 100) × 8</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 through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50.0; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.0</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8</center>

Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange core {{w|human body temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 °W || –6.70 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –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 scale || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| Felsius || 46.8 || 16.0 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}
[[1923: Felsius]] scale conversion formulas:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16</center>

==Transcript==

: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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T15:12:41Z

Liv2splain: en dashes

{{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same degrees 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 kelvins are 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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. So, as a linear appproximation:
<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.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius – 22) / 100) × 8</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 through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50.0; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.0</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8</center>

Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange core {{w|human body temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 °W || –6.70 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –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 scale || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| [[1923: Felsius]] || 46.8 || 16.0 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16</center>

==Transcript==

: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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T15:08:25Z

Liv2splain: /* Examples */ Felsius conversions

{{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}} scale, which uses the same degrees as 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 degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvins.

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 (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. 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 kelvin. 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 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same degrees 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 kelvins are 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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. So, as a linear appproximation:
<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.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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 inconsistent.
<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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{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}}
<center>Celsius = (°X - 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50.0; or (°X - 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.0</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8</center>

Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature}} (range midpoint)
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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 scale || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| [[1923: Felsius]] || 46.8 || 16.0 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || -9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16</center>

==Transcript==

: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

{{comic discussion}}

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

File:Temperature Scales.png

2024-10-26T15:03:49Z

Liv2splain: Liv2splain uploaded a new version of File:Temperature Scales.png

All the scales from [[3001: Temperature Scales]]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T21:11:14Z

Liv2splain: correct

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Furthermore, should it be 0°R or just 0R (no °)? I've been told that Kelvin doesn't use degrees because it's an absolute scale, so a) is this true and b) should it apply to Rankine? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.211.54|172.71.211.54]] 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Kelvin is rather strange, for reasons never totally explained. It's "the Kelvin scale", but the unit is "kelvin" and I never got on with the official absence of the ° symbol by the "K". I was always taught to ''say'' "degrees kelvin" (for temperatures) and "kelvin degrees" (for a change/range of temperature) in order to not cause confusion and technical misunderstandings (''perhaps'' easier to contextualise when down in writing?) but no accounting for taste, or possibly official laziness.
::On the basis that Rankine is not kelvin (whatever the reason for how kelvin is what it is), I would use the degrees, as I would any other absolute scale (whether it be an adjusted form of °Rø or °Ré or whatever else might be invented), because kelvin is just inexplicably (to me, and to others) ''the'' exception to absolutely every other reasonably equivalent contemporary measure, including capitalisation. YMMV! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.2|172.70.162.2]] 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::0ºRa, not 0ºR. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.157|172.70.206.157]] 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can be either. Perhaps best to use °Ra (in ambiguous context) to avoid ''possible'' confusion with °Ré and °Rø, but probably less important when both those two are also listed alongside (except for wondering what, if anything, is a typo, bad handwriting or other error). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.12|172.69.194.12]] 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's easy if you think about it like "meter". You usually say "meters" not "the meter scale" although both are correct. Scientists and engineers who use them daily call them "kelvins", not "kelvin" unless following a number. You wouldn't say "We need to measure this room in meter." Someone keeps reverting me on this, and they're wrong, but I don't care much anymore. I'll probably fix it next month or something. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about Tnew=0.1694×degC+46.25; degC=(Tnew-46.25)/0.1694, where 0 is absolute zero and 50 is room temperature? (Freezing point of water: 46.25; Boiling point of water: 63.19) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.248|162.158.186.248]] 05:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I would absolutely pull the trigger on an additional column if I didn't think it would further screw up what are most probably extremely cursed mobile portrait renderings of the table. How about a Trivia section? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is that the brine thing was an ad-hoc justification when the scale was presented to the Royal Society. It may have seemed less cursed. But yes, there's a BIG reason for using 32 or 64, halving a distance is trivial and as an instument maker, Fahrenheit would have found that attractive. Mind you, I'm getting this from the Straight Dope, so I could be a dope getting it straight. https://www.straightdope.com/21344240/did-cecil-err-in-explaining-the-significance-of-zero-fahrenheit [[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.189|162.158.10.189]] 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then, regarding {{diff|353895|this edit}} (and the original IP-led one(s) that even made huge and revert-necessary changes), was it ''really'' intended to get rid of whole paragraphs such as "Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures[...]" that had nothing to do with the numeric adjustments? When I see that, I see mistakes (especially in light of the "clobber" that happened, where typos reappeared and other things became unexplained/worse-explained once more). — Basically, if your edit summary is nust about updating baseline data, and the resulting maths, I don't expect (maybe good, maybe bad) edits to unrelated bits. Or I may (and have) presumed accidental (or deliberate?) carelessness that I'd rather not try to go back to first principles to re-re-check for the editor concerned. That is all. At least try to justify enough of your edit in its own way, even if it means diving in several times to get enough space to summarise your whole "why" to each tweak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.104|172.68.186.104]] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I have re-removed the removals piecemeal with individual edit summaries for clarity. Many of them involved detailed obscure technical misunderstandings, such as whether the Vostok and Death Valley measurements were surface temperatures (the WMO says they are, and there are the WMO's photos of the observation stations in the linked references now) which combined with the incorrect yearly average global mean temperature, added five paragraphs unnecessarily. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.152|172.68.23.152]] 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Definitely some points made (some incorrect, "ne er" was ''obviously'' more just a basic typo of "never", not my attempt to use "ne'er" for no good reason, and my attempt to fix that and some other bits ran into a set of Edit Conflicts ...hope I caught all the remaining ones when I finally could try again on the settled-down page) and I've blended answers to your objections in while giving back what useful nuances (from a number of past editors, only a couple of bits even having had my own hand primarilly behind them as they were) really needn't have been removed. I dispute the terms of your objections (as summarised) behind {{diff|353937|some changes}}, but have rephrased based upon what I ''think'' you mean, giving you should prefer and wouldn't feel the need to be as randomly censorious about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.173|172.69.195.173]] 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Figure 1 in https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature does not seem like a random walk to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.118|172.69.33.118]] 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Added the "Random Walk" because, ignoring long-term trends, year-on-year the measured average is going to blip up and down for all kinds of reasons (physical and measuring issues, both), so it will be lower than expected or higher than expected compared to the smoother track it actually takes on a rolling average. I think one of the versions I replaced had partial suggestion that the average was effectively constant (in °C, not just °X), and while records adjusted every now and then (or every year!), it all just rather settled down at the °X midpoint. Which it doesn't. (And also that it's ''possible'' that Average and Minimum change such that the projected Absolute Zero ''doesn't'' move so much, one year, although mostly the fulcrum will be closer to 0°X rather than 0K.)
::::But I've yet to see what's been changed (maybe improved) since I was last looking at it. Maybe this is an out-of-date explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.202|172.70.90.202]] 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

When I originally designed my unit conversion app I almost made a unit up that was based on the ideal gas law and one mass pound of said gas in a one cubic foot container. It seemed more quixotic than anything else so I didn't pull the trigger on it. Maybe I should have.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.33|172.70.111.33]] 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is x based off of elon musk changing twitter to X? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.50|172.71.254.50]] 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Too many things were already "X" (X marks the spot, Planet X, The X-Men, Xmas...), I see no need to presume that Elon has successfully claimed ownership of one entire letter of the alphabet due to a car-crash business deal and a self-obsessive personality. To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes an X is just an X", and with no references at all to anything Twitter-like I don't see any other intent than just as a traditional placeholder character. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.209|172.70.90.209]] 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Division by zero ==

I saw this in an edit summary: "10/0 is not ∞, it's also an error, not NaN according to the IEEE. It's closer to {+∞, -∞} than NaN but it's still neither because you can't make limits work"

Actually, IEEE floating point 10/0 can be an error, +∞, or NaN depending on the rounding mode. This is one of the reasons why mathemeticians don't appreciate the IEEE as much as they might. Division by zero is strictly undefined because of the problems with limits alluded to in the summary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdg1yn1SgE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.66|108.162.245.66]] 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:"When considering division by zero through limits, assigning {+∞, -∞} as potential results is insufficient because limits require consistency and well-defined behavior. In the case of dividing a number by values approaching zero, the results differ depending on whether zero is approached from the positive or negative direction. As a divisor approaches zero from the positive side, the quotient grows towards +∞, and from the negative side, it tends towards -∞. Since limits must converge to a single value for consistency, this disparity leads to an undefined result. Moreover, in many mathematical contexts, infinity is not a number but rather a concept describing unbounded growth, meaning operations involving infinity, like addition or multiplication, are not well-defined in the same way as with finite numbers. This inconsistency in approaching zero prevents {+∞, -∞} from being an adequate solution set for division by zero. Defining division by zero as infinity would create contradictions in both arithmetic and algebraic contexts, as it disrupts fundamental properties like continuity and field structures in mathematics. Hence, division by zero remains undefined to preserve mathematical rigor and coherence."
:[Chat Gippity 4o] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://imgflip.com/i/7yd7gz [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.131|172.71.150.131]] 09:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia section table values? ==

Someone please double-check the Trivia section temperatures. I am not convinced they are entirely correct or consistent. I'm least sure about the Galen row. And Wedgwood obviously needs more digits of precision. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.28|162.158.41.28]] 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T21:10:49Z

Liv2splain: kelvinS

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Furthermore, should it be 0°R or just 0R (no °)? I've been told that Kelvin doesn't use degrees because it's an absolute scale, so a) is this true and b) should it apply to Rankine? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.211.54|172.71.211.54]] 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Kelvin is rather strange, for reasons never totally explained. It's "the Kelvin scale", but the unit is "kelvin" and I never got on with the official absence of the ° symbol by the "K". I was always taught to ''say'' "degrees kelvin" (for temperatures) and "kelvin degrees" (for a change/range of temperature) in order to not cause confusion and technical misunderstandings (''perhaps'' easier to contextualise when down in writing?) but no accounting for taste, or possibly official laziness.
::On the basis that Rankine is not kelvin (whatever the reason for how kelvin is what it is), I would use the degrees, as I would any other absolute scale (whether it be an adjusted form of °Rø or °Ré or whatever else might be invented), because kelvin is just inexplicably (to me, and to others) ''the'' exception to absolutely every other reasonably equivalent contemporary measure, including capitalisation. YMMV! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.2|172.70.162.2]] 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::0ºRa, not 0ºR. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.157|172.70.206.157]] 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can be either. Perhaps best to use °Ra (in ambiguous context) to avoid ''possible'' confusion with °Ré and °Rø, but probably less important when both those two are also listed alongside (except for wondering what, if anything, is a typo, bad handwriting or other error). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.12|172.69.194.12]] 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's easy if you think about it like "meter". You usually say "meters" not "the meters scale" although both are correct. Scientists and engineers who use them daily call them "kelvins", not "kelvin" unless following a number. You wouldn't say "We need to measure this room in meter." Someone keeps reverting me on this, and they're wrong, but I don't care much anymore. I'll probably fix it next month or something. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about Tnew=0.1694×degC+46.25; degC=(Tnew-46.25)/0.1694, where 0 is absolute zero and 50 is room temperature? (Freezing point of water: 46.25; Boiling point of water: 63.19) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.248|162.158.186.248]] 05:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I would absolutely pull the trigger on an additional column if I didn't think it would further screw up what are most probably extremely cursed mobile portrait renderings of the table. How about a Trivia section? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is that the brine thing was an ad-hoc justification when the scale was presented to the Royal Society. It may have seemed less cursed. But yes, there's a BIG reason for using 32 or 64, halving a distance is trivial and as an instument maker, Fahrenheit would have found that attractive. Mind you, I'm getting this from the Straight Dope, so I could be a dope getting it straight. https://www.straightdope.com/21344240/did-cecil-err-in-explaining-the-significance-of-zero-fahrenheit [[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.189|162.158.10.189]] 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then, regarding {{diff|353895|this edit}} (and the original IP-led one(s) that even made huge and revert-necessary changes), was it ''really'' intended to get rid of whole paragraphs such as "Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures[...]" that had nothing to do with the numeric adjustments? When I see that, I see mistakes (especially in light of the "clobber" that happened, where typos reappeared and other things became unexplained/worse-explained once more). — Basically, if your edit summary is nust about updating baseline data, and the resulting maths, I don't expect (maybe good, maybe bad) edits to unrelated bits. Or I may (and have) presumed accidental (or deliberate?) carelessness that I'd rather not try to go back to first principles to re-re-check for the editor concerned. That is all. At least try to justify enough of your edit in its own way, even if it means diving in several times to get enough space to summarise your whole "why" to each tweak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.104|172.68.186.104]] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I have re-removed the removals piecemeal with individual edit summaries for clarity. Many of them involved detailed obscure technical misunderstandings, such as whether the Vostok and Death Valley measurements were surface temperatures (the WMO says they are, and there are the WMO's photos of the observation stations in the linked references now) which combined with the incorrect yearly average global mean temperature, added five paragraphs unnecessarily. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.152|172.68.23.152]] 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Definitely some points made (some incorrect, "ne er" was ''obviously'' more just a basic typo of "never", not my attempt to use "ne'er" for no good reason, and my attempt to fix that and some other bits ran into a set of Edit Conflicts ...hope I caught all the remaining ones when I finally could try again on the settled-down page) and I've blended answers to your objections in while giving back what useful nuances (from a number of past editors, only a couple of bits even having had my own hand primarilly behind them as they were) really needn't have been removed. I dispute the terms of your objections (as summarised) behind {{diff|353937|some changes}}, but have rephrased based upon what I ''think'' you mean, giving you should prefer and wouldn't feel the need to be as randomly censorious about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.173|172.69.195.173]] 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Figure 1 in https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature does not seem like a random walk to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.118|172.69.33.118]] 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Added the "Random Walk" because, ignoring long-term trends, year-on-year the measured average is going to blip up and down for all kinds of reasons (physical and measuring issues, both), so it will be lower than expected or higher than expected compared to the smoother track it actually takes on a rolling average. I think one of the versions I replaced had partial suggestion that the average was effectively constant (in °C, not just °X), and while records adjusted every now and then (or every year!), it all just rather settled down at the °X midpoint. Which it doesn't. (And also that it's ''possible'' that Average and Minimum change such that the projected Absolute Zero ''doesn't'' move so much, one year, although mostly the fulcrum will be closer to 0°X rather than 0K.)
::::But I've yet to see what's been changed (maybe improved) since I was last looking at it. Maybe this is an out-of-date explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.202|172.70.90.202]] 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

When I originally designed my unit conversion app I almost made a unit up that was based on the ideal gas law and one mass pound of said gas in a one cubic foot container. It seemed more quixotic than anything else so I didn't pull the trigger on it. Maybe I should have.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.33|172.70.111.33]] 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is x based off of elon musk changing twitter to X? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.50|172.71.254.50]] 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Too many things were already "X" (X marks the spot, Planet X, The X-Men, Xmas...), I see no need to presume that Elon has successfully claimed ownership of one entire letter of the alphabet due to a car-crash business deal and a self-obsessive personality. To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes an X is just an X", and with no references at all to anything Twitter-like I don't see any other intent than just as a traditional placeholder character. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.209|172.70.90.209]] 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Division by zero ==

I saw this in an edit summary: "10/0 is not ∞, it's also an error, not NaN according to the IEEE. It's closer to {+∞, -∞} than NaN but it's still neither because you can't make limits work"

Actually, IEEE floating point 10/0 can be an error, +∞, or NaN depending on the rounding mode. This is one of the reasons why mathemeticians don't appreciate the IEEE as much as they might. Division by zero is strictly undefined because of the problems with limits alluded to in the summary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdg1yn1SgE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.66|108.162.245.66]] 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:"When considering division by zero through limits, assigning {+∞, -∞} as potential results is insufficient because limits require consistency and well-defined behavior. In the case of dividing a number by values approaching zero, the results differ depending on whether zero is approached from the positive or negative direction. As a divisor approaches zero from the positive side, the quotient grows towards +∞, and from the negative side, it tends towards -∞. Since limits must converge to a single value for consistency, this disparity leads to an undefined result. Moreover, in many mathematical contexts, infinity is not a number but rather a concept describing unbounded growth, meaning operations involving infinity, like addition or multiplication, are not well-defined in the same way as with finite numbers. This inconsistency in approaching zero prevents {+∞, -∞} from being an adequate solution set for division by zero. Defining division by zero as infinity would create contradictions in both arithmetic and algebraic contexts, as it disrupts fundamental properties like continuity and field structures in mathematics. Hence, division by zero remains undefined to preserve mathematical rigor and coherence."
:[Chat Gippity 4o] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://imgflip.com/i/7yd7gz [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.131|172.71.150.131]] 09:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia section table values? ==

Someone please double-check the Trivia section temperatures. I am not convinced they are entirely correct or consistent. I'm least sure about the Galen row. And Wedgwood obviously needs more digits of precision. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.28|162.158.41.28]] 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T21:05:02Z

Liv2splain: ref

{{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 kelvin). The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvin. 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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 inconsistent.
<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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,<ref>https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198</ref> 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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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 effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, 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 temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

==Trivia==

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Sample {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature|Average human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}<ref>https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature</ref>
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}<ref>https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety</ref>
! Typical warm bath temperature<ref>https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/</ref>
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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==

: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]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T20:59:44Z

Liv2splain: /* Trivia */ graph of all

{{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 kelvin). The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvin. 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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 inconsistent.
<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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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 effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, 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 temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

==Trivia==

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Sample {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature|Average human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}<ref>https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature</ref>
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}<ref>https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety</ref>
! Typical warm bath temperature<ref>https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/</ref>
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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==

: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]]

File:Temperature Scales.png

2024-10-25T20:57:53Z

Liv2splain: oops

All the scales from [[3001: Temperature Scales]]

File:Temperature Scales.png

2024-10-25T20:57:15Z

Liv2splain: All the scales from 3000: Temperature Scales

All the scales from [[3000: Temperature Scales]]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T20:55:35Z

Liv2splain: /* Trivia section table values? */

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Furthermore, should it be 0°R or just 0R (no °)? I've been told that Kelvin doesn't use degrees because it's an absolute scale, so a) is this true and b) should it apply to Rankine? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.211.54|172.71.211.54]] 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Kelvin is rather strange, for reasons never totally explained. It's "the Kelvin scale", but the unit is "kelvin" and I never got on with the official absence of the ° symbol by the "K". I was always taught to ''say'' "degrees kelvin" (for temperatures) and "kelvin degrees" (for a change/range of temperature) in order to not cause confusion and technical misunderstandings (''perhaps'' easier to contextualise when down in writing?) but no accounting for taste, or possibly official laziness.
::On the basis that Rankine is not kelvin (whatever the reason for how kelvin is what it is), I would use the degrees, as I would any other absolute scale (whether it be an adjusted form of °Rø or °Ré or whatever else might be invented), because kelvin is just inexplicably (to me, and to others) ''the'' exception to absolutely every other reasonably equivalent contemporary measure, including capitalisation. YMMV! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.2|172.70.162.2]] 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::0ºRa, not 0ºR. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.157|172.70.206.157]] 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can be either. Perhaps best to use °Ra (in ambiguous context) to avoid ''possible'' confusion with °Ré and °Rø, but probably less important when both those two are also listed alongside (except for wondering what, if anything, is a typo, bad handwriting or other error). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.12|172.69.194.12]] 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about Tnew=0.1694×degC+46.25; degC=(Tnew-46.25)/0.1694, where 0 is absolute zero and 50 is room temperature? (Freezing point of water: 46.25; Boiling point of water: 63.19) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.248|162.158.186.248]] 05:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I would absolutely pull the trigger on an additional column if I didn't think it would further screw up what are most probably extremely cursed mobile portrait renderings of the table. How about a Trivia section? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is that the brine thing was an ad-hoc justification when the scale was presented to the Royal Society. It may have seemed less cursed. But yes, there's a BIG reason for using 32 or 64, halving a distance is trivial and as an instument maker, Fahrenheit would have found that attractive. Mind you, I'm getting this from the Straight Dope, so I could be a dope getting it straight. https://www.straightdope.com/21344240/did-cecil-err-in-explaining-the-significance-of-zero-fahrenheit [[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.189|162.158.10.189]] 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then, regarding {{diff|353895|this edit}} (and the original IP-led one(s) that even made huge and revert-necessary changes), was it ''really'' intended to get rid of whole paragraphs such as "Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures[...]" that had nothing to do with the numeric adjustments? When I see that, I see mistakes (especially in light of the "clobber" that happened, where typos reappeared and other things became unexplained/worse-explained once more). — Basically, if your edit summary is nust about updating baseline data, and the resulting maths, I don't expect (maybe good, maybe bad) edits to unrelated bits. Or I may (and have) presumed accidental (or deliberate?) carelessness that I'd rather not try to go back to first principles to re-re-check for the editor concerned. That is all. At least try to justify enough of your edit in its own way, even if it means diving in several times to get enough space to summarise your whole "why" to each tweak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.104|172.68.186.104]] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I have re-removed the removals piecemeal with individual edit summaries for clarity. Many of them involved detailed obscure technical misunderstandings, such as whether the Vostok and Death Valley measurements were surface temperatures (the WMO says they are, and there are the WMO's photos of the observation stations in the linked references now) which combined with the incorrect yearly average global mean temperature, added five paragraphs unnecessarily. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.152|172.68.23.152]] 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Definitely some points made (some incorrect, "ne er" was ''obviously'' more just a basic typo of "never", not my attempt to use "ne'er" for no good reason, and my attempt to fix that and some other bits ran into a set of Edit Conflicts ...hope I caught all the remaining ones when I finally could try again on the settled-down page) and I've blended answers to your objections in while giving back what useful nuances (from a number of past editors, only a couple of bits even having had my own hand primarilly behind them as they were) really needn't have been removed. I dispute the terms of your objections (as summarised) behind {{diff|353937|some changes}}, but have rephrased based upon what I ''think'' you mean, giving you should prefer and wouldn't feel the need to be as randomly censorious about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.173|172.69.195.173]] 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Figure 1 in https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature does not seem like a random walk to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.118|172.69.33.118]] 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Added the "Random Walk" because, ignoring long-term trends, year-on-year the measured average is going to blip up and down for all kinds of reasons (physical and measuring issues, both), so it will be lower than expected or higher than expected compared to the smoother track it actually takes on a rolling average. I think one of the versions I replaced had partial suggestion that the average was effectively constant (in °C, not just °X), and while records adjusted every now and then (or every year!), it all just rather settled down at the °X midpoint. Which it doesn't. (And also that it's ''possible'' that Average and Minimum change such that the projected Absolute Zero ''doesn't'' move so much, one year, although mostly the fulcrum will be closer to 0°X rather than 0K.)
::::But I've yet to see what's been changed (maybe improved) since I was last looking at it. Maybe this is an out-of-date explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.202|172.70.90.202]] 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

When I originally designed my unit conversion app I almost made a unit up that was based on the ideal gas law and one mass pound of said gas in a one cubic foot container. It seemed more quixotic than anything else so I didn't pull the trigger on it. Maybe I should have.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.33|172.70.111.33]] 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is x based off of elon musk changing twitter to X? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.50|172.71.254.50]] 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Too many things were already "X" (X marks the spot, Planet X, The X-Men, Xmas...), I see no need to presume that Elon has successfully claimed ownership of one entire letter of the alphabet due to a car-crash business deal and a self-obsessive personality. To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes an X is just an X", and with no references at all to anything Twitter-like I don't see any other intent than just as a traditional placeholder character. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.209|172.70.90.209]] 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Division by zero ==

I saw this in an edit summary: "10/0 is not ∞, it's also an error, not NaN according to the IEEE. It's closer to {+∞, -∞} than NaN but it's still neither because you can't make limits work"

Actually, IEEE floating point 10/0 can be an error, +∞, or NaN depending on the rounding mode. This is one of the reasons why mathemeticians don't appreciate the IEEE as much as they might. Division by zero is strictly undefined because of the problems with limits alluded to in the summary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdg1yn1SgE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.66|108.162.245.66]] 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:"When considering division by zero through limits, assigning {+∞, -∞} as potential results is insufficient because limits require consistency and well-defined behavior. In the case of dividing a number by values approaching zero, the results differ depending on whether zero is approached from the positive or negative direction. As a divisor approaches zero from the positive side, the quotient grows towards +∞, and from the negative side, it tends towards -∞. Since limits must converge to a single value for consistency, this disparity leads to an undefined result. Moreover, in many mathematical contexts, infinity is not a number but rather a concept describing unbounded growth, meaning operations involving infinity, like addition or multiplication, are not well-defined in the same way as with finite numbers. This inconsistency in approaching zero prevents {+∞, -∞} from being an adequate solution set for division by zero. Defining division by zero as infinity would create contradictions in both arithmetic and algebraic contexts, as it disrupts fundamental properties like continuity and field structures in mathematics. Hence, division by zero remains undefined to preserve mathematical rigor and coherence."
:[Chat Gippity 4o] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://imgflip.com/i/7yd7gz [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.131|172.71.150.131]] 09:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia section table values? ==

Someone please double-check the Trivia section temperatures. I am not convinced they are entirely correct or consistent. I'm least sure about the Galen row. And Wedgwood obviously needs more digits of precision. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.28|162.158.41.28]] 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T20:54:40Z

Liv2splain: /* Trivia */ refs

{{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 kelvin). The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvin. 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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 inconsistent.
<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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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 effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, 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 temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

==Trivia==

In the various scales, this is a table of several benchmark temperatures.

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Sample {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature|Average human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}<ref>https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature</ref>
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}<ref>https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety</ref>
! Typical warm bath temperature<ref>https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/</ref>
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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 °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==

: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]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T20:49:53Z

Liv2splain: /* Trivia */ ok

{{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 kelvin). The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvin. 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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 inconsistent.
<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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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 effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, 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 temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

==Trivia==

In the various scales, this is a table of several benchmark temperatures.

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Sample {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature|Average human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}} 
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}} 
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|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==

: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]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T20:48:06Z

Liv2splain: /* Trivia */ oops

{{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 kelvin). The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvin. 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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 inconsistent.
<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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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 effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, 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 temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

==Trivia==

In the various scales, this is a table of several benchmark temperatures.

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Sample {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature|Average human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}} 
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}} 
! "Warm bath" temperature 
! "{{w|Coffee#Brewing|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==

: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]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T20:47:24Z

Liv2splain: /* Trivia */ oh I see what you're trying to say

{{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 kelvin). The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvin. 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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 inconsistent.
<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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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 effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, 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 temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

==Trivia==

In the various scales, this is a table of several benchmark temperatures.

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Sample {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Average human body temperature|Human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}} 
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}} 
! "Warm bath" temperature 
! "{{w|Coffee#Brewing|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==

: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]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T20:46:25Z

Liv2splain: /* Trivia */ body temperature isn't a midpoint, it's a maximum, relative to usually cooler (more ambient) extremities and e.g. skin, hair, nail, etc. It's called "core" if you need another adjective

{{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 kelvin). The Kelvin scale has 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 kelvin. 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 originally 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, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially 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 originally used 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 give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<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 (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. 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 inconsistent.
<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>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</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 changed, to more or less the form already described above, 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>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 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 equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 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 effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, 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 temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

==Trivia==

In the various scales, this is a table of several benchmark temperatures.

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Sample {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature|Human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}} 
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}} 
! "Warm bath" temperature 
! "{{w|Coffee#Brewing|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==

: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]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T09:02:32Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ embolden

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] during his time as 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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 being broken nearly 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}} values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T09:01:27Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ wikicase

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] during his time as 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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 being broken nearly 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}} values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:59:03Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ unnecessary hyphen

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] during his time as 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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

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 being broken nearly 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}} values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:53:11Z

Liv2splain: /* Division by zero */ elaborate

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about 0.1694×C+46.25, where 0 is absolute zero and 50 is room temperature? (Freezing point of water: 46.25; Boiling point of water: 63.19) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.248|162.158.186.248]] 05:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I would absolutely pull the trigger on an additional column if I didn't think it would further screw up what are most probably extremely cursed mobile portrait renderings of the table. How about a Trivia section? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then, regarding {{diff|353895|this edit}} (and the original IP-led one(s) that even made huge and revert-necessary changes), was it ''really'' intended to get rid of whole paragraphs such as "Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures[...]" that had nothing to do with the numeric adjustments? When I see that, I see mistakes (especially in light of the "clobber" that happened, where typos reappeared and other things became unexplained/worse-explained once more). — Basically, if your edit summary is nust about updating baseline data, and the resulting maths, I don't expect (maybe good, maybe bad) edits to unrelated bits. Or I may (and have) presumed accidental (or deliberate?) carelessness that I'd rather not try to go back to first principles to re-re-check for the editor concerned. That is all. At least try to justify enough of your edit in its own way, even if it means diving in several times to get enough space to summarise your whole "why" to each tweak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.104|172.68.186.104]] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I have re-removed the removals piecemeal with individual edit summaries for clarity. Many of them involved detailed obscure technical misunderstandings, such as whether the Vostok and Death Valley measurements were surface temperatures (the WMO says they are, and there are the WMO's photos of the observation stations in the linked references now) which combined with the incorrect yearly average global mean temperature, added five paragraphs unnecessarily. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.152|172.68.23.152]] 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Definitely some points made (some incorrect, "ne er" was ''obviously'' more just a basic typo of "never", not my attempt to use "ne'er" for no good reason, and my attempt to fix that and some other bits ran into a set of Edit Conflicts ...hope I caught all the remaining ones when I finally could try again on the settled-down page) and I've blended answers to your objections in while giving back what useful nuances (from a number of past editors, only a couple of bits even having had my own hand primarilly behind them as they were) really needn't have been removed. I dispute the terms of your objections (as summarised) behind {{diff|353937|some changes}}, but have rephrased based upon what I ''think'' you mean, giving you should prefer and wouldn't feel the need to be as randomly censorious about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.173|172.69.195.173]] 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Figure 1 in https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature does not seem like a random walk to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.118|172.69.33.118]] 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Division by zero ==

I saw this in an edit summary: "10/0 is not ∞, it's also an error, not NaN according to the IEEE. It's closer to {+∞, -∞} than NaN but it's still neither because you can't make limits work"

Actually, IEEE floating point 10/0 can be an error, +∞, or NaN depending on the rounding mode. This is one of the reasons why mathemeticians don't appreciate the IEEE as much as they might. Division by zero is strictly undefined because of the problems with limits alluded to in the summary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdg1yn1SgE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.66|108.162.245.66]] 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:"When considering division by zero through limits, assigning {+∞, -∞} as potential results is insufficient because limits require consistency and well-defined behavior. In the case of dividing a number by values approaching zero, the results differ depending on whether zero is approached from the positive or negative direction. As a divisor approaches zero from the positive side, the quotient grows towards +∞, and from the negative side, it tends towards -∞. Since limits must converge to a single value for consistency, this disparity leads to an undefined result. Moreover, in many mathematical contexts, infinity is not a number but rather a concept describing unbounded growth, meaning operations involving infinity, like addition or multiplication, are not well-defined in the same way as with finite numbers. This inconsistency in approaching zero prevents {+∞, -∞} from being an adequate solution set for division by zero. Defining division by zero as infinity would create contradictions in both arithmetic and algebraic contexts, as it disrupts fundamental properties like continuity and field structures in mathematics. Hence, division by zero remains undefined to preserve mathematical rigor and coherence."
:[Chat Gippity 4o] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:45:53Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ room temperatures

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero-point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] during his time as 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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

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 being broken nearly 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}} values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:44:09Z

Liv2splain: Trivia?

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:38:13Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ honestly, who among us doesn't spend most of their time thinking about the Roman Empire?

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero-point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] during his time as 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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

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 being broken nearly 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.
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:36:05Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ source for Galen

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero-point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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

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 being broken nearly 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.
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:34:52Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ 180 A.D. is not ancient

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero-point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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., 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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

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 being broken nearly 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.
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:30:47Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ territories

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero-point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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 ancient Green physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature, 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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

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 being broken nearly 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.
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T08:29:09Z

Liv2splain: /* Explanation */ reword

{{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 EXPONENTIAL 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 {{w|Celsius}} 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}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, 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 done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

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 was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version after his death in 1745. 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 the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') 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}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{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. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country), 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. 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.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are 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 practical zero-point. 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|Isacc 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. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{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. 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 ancient Green physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature, 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. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard 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 (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a 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}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [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. 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. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

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 10/10, 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." || ''not provided'' || 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] 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.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "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 much different.

{{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

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 being broken nearly 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.
|}

==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

{{comic discussion}}

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