Talk:3055: Giants

Anyone know why "the Man in the Moon" has square brackets around it? Stylistic choice, or clever reference? 172.71.254.43 19:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I suspect it's to make it clear that it's all one block of text, otherwise it might be read as separate objects on each line. IntangibleMatter (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought that too but then Jolly Green should be in brackets as well. I think it's because Man in the Moon doesn't have "giant" after it. The rest all assume "giant" after (gas giant, etc.).162.158.63.81 20:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Pat

I think that the difference between these two cases is just a matter of available space. The space around "Jolly/Green" makes it clear that the two words go together, whereas "The/Man in/the Moon" would be crammed together even if the three lines were supposed to be distinct, unless the font was a lot smaller. The brackets remove that ambiguity. BunsenH (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Given how commonly this community makes up answers, and how very little information there is on this, I suspect the correct answer to this question to not emerge here, but maybe somebody can make an argument that is actually convincing. It's certainly notably different and I didn't think much of it until seeing it mentioned. 162.158.63.28 20:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's because unlike all the other entries in the diagram, it is not appropriate to append the word "Giant" to the end of it. Like, it's the full name of a particular giant, rather than a "type" of one as otherwise implied by the title of the chart. 172.69.7.194 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Alas, if only the Norse had referred to Ymir and his descendants as "Ice Giants" instead of "Frost Giants", we might have had another contender for that central space. MeZimm (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, let's not get hung up on what things are correctly named – the renaming of the Iron Man to the Iron Giant has always seemed very clumsy, but, alas, seems to have stuck.Yorkshire Pudding (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Been a while since Randall's enthusiasm for Buns (rabbits) made an appearance in the comic! 172.70.130.216 05:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Classifying the Atacama Giant and Cardiff Giant as 'Geological / Planetary' seems pretty dubious - requires an unusually broad interpretation of one or other of those terms.172.70.163.109 09:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see this when doing so, but the intro explanation's use of "geological" needed editing ('maybe-quoted') to encompass the MITM's more accurately selenological nature, and (being lunar) it also really isn't "planetary", either.

Assuming that "planetary" is the fallback for rock-like stuff that isn't properly Earthly, it's a questionable fallback given that the Moon is... only a moon! At best, it's "a moon of a planet", but then the semantic alternatives are limited (a moon of a dwarf-planet, is the only alternative I can currently think of, until we also see 'moons' of artificial constructs given a planet-like status).

But I also can't think of a better reduction/refinement (for ourselves, or that Randall might have better used for his current self-selected set), so contented myself with employing minor punctuated vaguity. 172.70.90.4 14:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In planetary science, the moon is a planet. EebstertheGreat (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

...according to The Planetary Society, who of course want to keep their remit as wide as possible. ;) (But as even they acknowledge, right at the start of the article, it depends who you ask. And once you ask the IAU...) From the root 'wanderer', anything moving against the 'fixed' background of stars. Including any random Starlink that isn't sufficiently unreflective. 172.69.195.172 11:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Poor André is once again left out Pmeisel (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

New York didn't get a mention either, even though at least one of them has been to space.172.71.178.58 17:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

May iron giant be a reference to iron stars that may exist (if protons do not decay) c. 10¹⁵⁰⁰ years from now? 172.71.194.113 15:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it's a reference to the character in the book and movie who came from and could fly in space. Thus he is both not real and (fictionally) in space. EebstertheGreat (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

"Iron star" is also used for a blue supergiant with Fe_II lines, with η Car being a possible example of that iron star. Those iron stars are real, are giants, and are in space. 172.71.194.49 10:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting that the Iron Man/Giant was not in space for the overwhelming majority of his depiction on page (or film? ...never seen that), which would perhaps be the best measure of his (fictional) existence. 172.69.195.172 11:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have seen the film, and can confirm that while the vast majority of its time is spent on earth, there is some time where he is in space, namely during the introductory scenes and the climax. DollarStoreBa'al (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)