Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:09, 30 January 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus. I have no problem with a rename, as was suggested below, but the consensus is to keep this article intact. ----- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the future in forecasts

Timeline of the future in forecasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: The entire article is a hodge podge which involves timeline of all field including nanotechnology to space. Misplaced Pages is not indiscriminate collection of information. The information in this article should be merged into the individual year articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Since this AfD process started, a significant amount of work has been done on the article. It has been expanded, pruned, cleaned-up, re-formated and re-arranged. References have been checked, and a new lead section has been written. The article should now consist of credible, referenced near-future forecasts, with no fictional sources whatsoever. It simply presents a neutral sumnmary of these verifiable forecasts. There is no additional interpretation or analysis. No conclusions are drawn; no position is advanced; there is no speculation about the reliability of the forecasts. There is no attempt to synthesise the forecasts into a "future history". Please take the current state of the article into account when determining consensus. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I find it easier to navigate as it currently is than merged into articles about individual years. Even though the list includes several technologies, it is a reasonable size. If the list gets too big, then I would support splitting the list into lists by individual technologies. Q0 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article is not indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep clear inclusion criteria, well referenced, well organised and useful for navigation - in fact, completely the opposite of an indiscriminate collection of information. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The first paragraph places everything in the correct context and most items are well sourced.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. We have articles on future events when we know for sure about them. Just because someone says "we will have XYZ by the year 123" or because a company promises "a self-driving car by 5432 in every home" doesn't mean it /will/ happen. This list is nothing more than a crystal ball. ^demon 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please don't exaggerate. The article says nothing remotely resembling "a self-driving car by 5432 in every home". It is a timeline of credible extrapolations from known technologies by reliable sources, most of which are dated within the next 20 years. The most distant dates in the timeline are 2050 and 2095. The fact that government agencies and international companies have made these forecasts is clearly notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: My interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is that Misplaced Pages cannot say "Technology X will be available by 2050," but can say, "Person Y estimates that technology X will be available around 2050." Q0 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Hut 8.5 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, but it appears to me that nearly all of the predictions in this list are verifiable. I don't think this information should be merged into the individual year articles, and AFD is the wrong venue for that anyway. I would probably support a new name for the list though. --Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per my reasoning at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth. While verifibility is not the problem, Misplaced Pages is not indiscriminate collection of information, and thus all the above votes are invalid. The concensus is currently to have year articles containing the information, even if it is not the most navigable. Editorofthewiki 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yours is the only argument that makes me think. Having read the debate for that previous article, it leaves me with the understanding that it was aindiscriminate information. That does NOT apply to the current article however and I'm unable to compare to the cited article because it's contents are deleted. SunCreator (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete an absolutely indiscriminate list that mentions various topics from various works of fiction (or some vague speculations) that somehow have something to do with the future. "Below is a comprehensive list of major future events..." no it's not. It's a completely indiscriminate list of fictional or semi-fictional future-trivia. And it's written entirely from in-universe perspective -- it describes fictional ("predicted") depictions of future as if they were somehow real. It's the ultimate crystalball to beat all crystalballs. The statements are sourced, but the sourcing is to primary sources, not to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Now give me some of these secondary sources that show that these "predictions" are notable; or if you can't find any, then delete this future-cruft. Indiscriminate collection of trivia, that's what it is. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Response to Henrik Ebeltoft - there are several flaws in your argument:
    1. The only references in the article to fictional or "in universe" timelines are the small number of forecasts attribuited to "Arthur C. Clarke, 2001" (8 out of 50 items). I have proposed in the article's talk page that these forecasts should be removed, as they detract from the quality of the article. The forecasts attributed to "Arthur C. Clarke, 2001" were not actually part of a fictional timeline, but were from an interview with Clarke in 2001. I have added a reference to the article.
    2. As far as I can tell, all other references are to factual forecasts from a wide variety of non-fiction sources. Some of these are primary sources, but WP:NOR allows use of primary sources as long as there is no additional interpretation or evaluation of their contents.
    3. You conflate "fictional" and "predicted". Not all predictions of future events are fictional - see for example Graphical timeline of our universe. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, not everything predicted is necessarily fictional; but in the case of this article, it comes so close as to make no difference. Surely, there can be very detailed, realistic scientific studies of how the future may look like, but this article seems to reference mainly some vague, pseudo-realistic musings by various thinkers, whether intended as fiction or as a true prediction of the future. (Nobody can really tell.) However, the main objection seems to be that the sources are mainly primary sources; there are no reliable secondary sources. You say that "use of primary sources as long as there is no additional interpretation or evaluation of their contents" is allowed; I disagree. The most essential criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is that there has been coverage in multiple, independent, reliable published secondary sources -- sources which really discuss the subject from an independent perspective. Primary sources are indeed allowed for verification of particular statements or facts; but secondary sources are essential. In other words, Misplaced Pages must only document things which have been discussed elsewhere -- "interpretation and evaluation of content" by independent secondary sources is really essential, and this is absent here. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The references in the arricle include a United Nations report, a US Census Bureau database, economic models from Goldman Sachs and PWC, and reports of research from several universities and commercial companies. Hardly "vague, pseudo-realistic musings", and certainly not intended as fiction (yes, of course you can tell the difference !).
2. On primary sources WP:PSTS says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages" as long as an article "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". This article conforms to that policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and almost everything is cited to Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction writer. Grsz11 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I ask any closing admin to ignore the statement by Grsz, it's false on both accounts, the article fully meets WP:CRYSTAL because it's verified and 'everything' is not by Arthur C. Clarke, just check the article! SunCreator (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not exaggerate. Out of about 50 forecasts in the article, I count only 8 that are attributed to Arthur C. Clarke. And of course Clarke wrote many non-fiction works. Anyway, I have proposed on the article's talk page that these 8 Clarke forecasts should be removed unless a non-fiction reference can be found. Impact on article will be minimal. These Clarke forecasts actually come from an interview with him in 2001 - I have added a reference to the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral pending a >5x expansion so that there are good sources and cleaned up and information under every heading especially environment, Keep if this is performed. ~AH1 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as discriminate, fascinating, and referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm.... "discriminate" -- where's that? The article mixes everything together, things both probable (can't seem to find any, if it comes to that) and improbable (everything else). "Fascinating" -- yes, to be sure, very fascinating -- and a very bad argument for keeping. "Referenced" -- yes, but to primary sources. Where's the independent interpretation and evaluation in secondary reliable sources? Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It is an organized list that is far from unwieldly that deals specifically with verfiable predictions for the future, i.e. "discrminate." "Very" should be avoided. "Use this word sparingly. Where emphasis is necessary, use words strong in themselves." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 63. "Rather, very, little, pretty--these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words. The constant use of the adjective little (except to indicate size) is particularly debilitating..." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 73. The topic of "future predictions" and "future timeline" are the subjects of published books. Moreover, the topic is consient with published specialized encyclopedias of the future per the First pillar. Finally, I improved the article's grammar and reference format. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable high profile subject with a few high-profile predictors which should be easy to source. Subject lends itself naturally to a list-like timeline. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth. This is almost exactly the same thing. Editorofthewiki 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article cannot be "almost exactly the same thing" as "Future timeline of Earth", because the nominator of this AfD, User:Otolemur crassicaudatus, took a completely opposite position in the "Future timeline of the Earth" discussion, where he argued strongly for keeping that article. An editor would not take such oppositely polarised positions if the articles were similar. Otolemur has clarified the difference between the articles on my talk page. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As per Casliber. --McCormack (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You must've obviously not read the debate linked above. Editorofthewiki 10:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - No valid argue put forward for deletion. This is a highly referenced and verified document about possible future events. WP:Crystal don't apply because it's verified, IINFO#IINFO doesn't apply because it's not indiscriminate. SunCreator (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Consensus seems to be that adequately sourced predictions should be allowed into the various future "year" articles - indeed, some contributors here are suggesting just that. Per WP:LISTS then, this list is a legitimate aid to navigation and browsing, it complements the individual articles, and as such it should be kept. Sheffield Steel_stalk 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE: User:Henrik Ebeltoft has been blocked for using an alternate account and IP as socks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: None of which were used here...I don't think. Grsz11 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The main account did participate here and once we determine someone is disrupting Misplaced Pages in any fashion, we usually disregard their comments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a model of WP:SYNTH. None of these sources say all these things will happen in this order. Even if this article used entirely non-fiction sources, it would still be a fictional (or WP:OR, your choice) future history with no place in an encyclopedia. Articles like this are why WP:CRYSTAL is a policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The topic is consient with published specialized encyclopedias of the future per the First pillar and it is not original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The existence of in-universe fictional encyclopedias does not mean Misplaced Pages should become one as well. The WP:5P you propose supports this article does not allow original research (which a WP:SYNTH is), and requires verifiability. These assorted sourced opinions when shaped into a future timeline become unverifiable speculation, / edg ☺ ☭ 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • An article that cites sources with speculation does not mean the article itself is speculation, it's merely citing predictions made in a variety of sources. WE'RE (Misplaced Pages, I mean) is not saying that this is the future, hence it's not "Timeline of the future," but "Timeline of the future in forecasts. Acknowledging some of Nostrodamus's notable predictions or the Book of Revelations with primary sourcing in a straightforward manner would not similarly equate to original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Creating an article History as it would be in prophecy by combining Nostrodamus's predictions and the Book of Revelations would not be straighforward, and would indeed be WP:OR. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Not really; mentioning notable predictions is fine. Perhaps what you suggest is that the article just needs more context, i.e. like Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2, but in such a case we can have the timeline of predictions and then have a section on secondary sources that evaluate some of those predictions. Encyclopedias combine primary and secondary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment edg has misunderstood WP:SYNTH. Obviously this article does not breach WP:SYNTH as it is not synthesing material to advance a position or to support an editor's conclusions. It is simply summarising the source material without additional interpretation. As WP:SYNTH says: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing". Gandalf61 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we don't /know/ any of this is going to happen. It's speculation. While it may be sourced and professional speculation, it is still just speculation. Unlike the Beijing Olympics happening this summer (which we know almost for 100% certain /will/ happen and merits and article in and of itself), these things tend to A) Be farther off, and B) Not be an event that we write about by itself. For example, when the world population hit 6 billion, we don't have an article called 6 billionth person. We make a mention on the appropriate date and year page. The same will happen with these events, when they occur. ^demon 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I think because of the 2008 Tibetan unrest a lot of uncertainty actually pertains to the planned Summer Olympics this year. We could always augment the regular prose of the article by explaining how predictions of the future is a common practice. Accoridng to one of those Page a Day Calendars, Lord Kelvin, One Heck of a Prognosticator, president of the Royal Society in the 1890s, and disbeliever in virtually every scientific discovery, claimed that “Radio has no future,” “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning,” and “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” Orville Wright, in 1908 claimed that “No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris.” And Irving Thalberg, MGM movie producer, asserted in 1927 that “Novelty is always welcome, but talking pictures are just a fad.” So, making forecasts of the future's timeline has a historic basis with which we can perhaps expand the article and then have the list section. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment edg and ^demon have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL. This article does not breach WP:CRYSTAL because it does not contain speculation, editors' opinions or analysis. It simply presents a neutral summmary of verifiable forecasts - there is no speculation about the reliability of these forecasts. As WP:CRYSTAL says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I would suggest you rephrase your comment from "misunderstanding" to "have a different interpretation of it than I do." Who is right is beyond me, but policy often is interpreted differently (for better or worse) by different people. This being said, saying someone "misunderstands it" attempts to put a label on us of being "wrong." I'm not wrong, you're not wrong. We just look at the issue differently. ^demon 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay - let me say that I believe that you have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL, in the sense that your interpretation of it is not the generally accepted interpretation. At least we can agree that the article does not contain editors' speculation, editors' opinions or analysis, and that it simply presents a neutral summmary of verifiable forecasts ? Those are objective facts - I do not see how there can be differences of interpretation there. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.