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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Keep The article is not indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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^{[omg plz]} 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: My interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is that Wikipedia 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)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Hut 8.5 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Wikipedia 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)[reply]
• Strong delete as per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth. While verifibility is not the problem, Wikipedia 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia" 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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^(TCU) 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as discriminate, fascinating, and referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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^Tally-ho! 03:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]