Talk:2042

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Cup[edit]

I don't think that there will actually be 2042 FIFA World Cup taking place in 2042, since the FIFA World Cup Trophy will expire in 2038. Joseandricardo, 21:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means that, in/from 2038, there will be room for no more winners' names on the Trophy. 82.163.24.100 22:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though, a new FIFA World Cup Trophy will be made before 2042, and, there may be a 2042 FIFA World Cup after all.

Julian Year[edit]

I note that the page, in the box "2042 in other calendars", has "Julian calendar 2087". That's wrong. Established convention is that the Julian Calendar, which was in common use before 1582/1752/?, has A.D. numbering - that means the same year number as Gregorian, except (currently) for Greg Jan 1-13, which are in the previous Julian Calendar year.

  • (1) Check that.
  • (2) The table seems to be computed elsewhere, so the change needs to be made there and will correct all uses.

82.163.24.100 22:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US demographics[edit]

Should the demographic prediction by the United States Census Bureau on the composition of the American people by 2042 considered notable?

Comment: What in this (or any other) year page is? --bender235 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro as long as you're not spamming the year pages. The census puts out thousands of lines of data for every year. We don't include most of them in /any/ year page. So use the same notability guidelines you'd use for historical pages -- since this is a significant social and other change, I approve this one in particular. If you find you're adding more than one of the same sort of note every few years, it may not be notable. +sj + 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This poll is not about census prediction in general, but only about this particular prediction. --bender235 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: One year out of many, one country out of many, one statistic out of many. The important question, "So what?" has not been answered. This is an encyclopedia, not a database. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What "predicted event" entry in any year from 2010 to 2999 is more than just "one year out of many, one country out of many, one statistic out of many," or concerning just one topic out of many? What about "Elections for the 128th United States Congress" in this article right here? Ain't that just "one year out of many, one country out of many, one election out of many"? After ignoring this question for weeks, could you please respond? Name any entry from any year between 2010 and 10000 (or further, if you want) that is more than just "one out of many …"! --bender235 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many entries concerning outer space, the environment, and international politics (e.g., the EU) are probably appropriate. A lot of the entries are of more domestic than international relevance, and probably don't belong in these international articles. But it's not even clear why some random census projection is domestically significant. Populations change all the time. The question remaining is still the same: So what? If a certain population is expected to correspond with, say, food shortages or unprecedented crowding, then it would probably be worth mentioning. But if not, then why bother? If you still don't see where I'm coming from, then read the eighth chapter of Technopoly by Neil Postman. Statistics can be thrown around like confetti, but the fact that they are out there does not make them worth holding on to. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are entries concerning astronomy or the environment not "one out of many..." (in each case)? There are numerous entries saying something like "By 2015 space probe Dawn will reach dwarf planet Ceres". One of many years, one of many space probes, one of many planets, like you said.
Anyway, who says these year pages may only included "international" or "outer space" entries? Domestic issues are often times as important. Or do we have to delete all entries on the American Civil War or the French Revolution now? In 2042, U.S.-minorities likely will outnumber the current majority for the first time in then 266 years. Even if its only a prediction, and even if its concerning only one country, how can it not be notable? --bender235 (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Astronomy and the environment are important because the solar system and the biosphere surround the entire planet. Besides, a year is an astronomical entity, so the notability of these entire articles sort of hinges on our ability to appreciate celestial activity. Certain major domestic events are are of international significance for the sheer reason that they receive international coverage or critique. I don't know how important it will be that domestic minority groups will collectively outnumber the current majority. If it matters--and it very well might--then surely some sources will say why. It is a fundamental law of the universe that stuff happens. It is also true that if stuff didn't happen, then people would have nothing to go "ooh" and "ahh" about (which is, I suppose, a further example of stuff happening). It can be deduced, therefore, that stuff will happen, and that people will at times take notice of this fact. This does not, however, guarantee that what people will notice is not trivial, coincidental fluff, and it does not guarantee that the ways in which people notice it are any more than impulsive reflections of this fluffery. The key question still has not changed: So what? How will mankind change or benefit as a result of some occurrance? How will history be shaped? How would past generations have cared, and how will future generations care? See WP:RY for more information on how entries are selected for inclusion in these articles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it why things like "2100: Polaris appears furthest North" or "2221: Triple conjunction between Mars and Saturn" are more notable to human history than "2040: China's GDP will reach 123 trillion" or "2042: U.S. minorities will outnumber majority". Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, right? Or has it become astronomy-only? ––bender235 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all astronomical events should be mentioned, either. I'd stick with ones that are particularly rare and/or famous, ones that involve scientific discovery and/or exploration, and ones that otherwise have significant cultural meaning. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is that these articles are littered with trivia, then you would be correct, and you are more than welcome to assist in the clean-up process. But the presence of trivia does not justify the addition of more trivia. To co-opt a phrase by Edward Abbey, "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not advocating a clean-up at all. Wikipedia (unlike any encyclopedia on paper) has no shortage of space. We can add astronomical events just like political or demographical. We can add hundreds of them to any year page. But instead you (and some others) fuss because I added a third one. --bender235 (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be WP:NOTPAPER, but it's also not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. See provision #4 of the latter policy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda hard for me to see why one sentence qualifies as "long and sprawling lists of statistics". And even five or ten of these kind of facts on one page would not make a "long and sprawling list" in my mind. --bender235 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But "hundreds of them" would qualify. And if one, then why not hundreds? Why even bother with the one? That pesky little question, "So what?" has still not been answered. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, even hundred entries would not make a "long and sprawling list". Look at 2000, for example. There are easily 200 entries, let alone the births and deaths sections.
And answering "so what?": according to the Census Bureau, 2042 will be a turning point in United States demographics. For the first time, minorities will together outnumber what has been the majority for then 266 years. --bender235 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro : Perhaps an elephant in the room is that the statement/predicted event can be interpreted as having racist undertones. Note that I am *not* accusing the OP of any such thing, merely noting that predictions of that type are commonly used by groups that *are* racist, in the context of "those 'bad' people (of another ethnic group) are going to soon outnumber us 'good' people (of the 'correct' ethnic group)", with an implication that something bad will then happen. So some care should be taken in adding such information. Nonetheless, predicted demographic trends are, IMO, notable, when applied to sufficiently large entities. Rwessel (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's only of interest to racists, in some sense. That wouldn't be a reason for not including it, but it indicates a clear failure of reason to include it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not racism, it's called demographics. BTW, I think it's far-fetched to say a statement like "group x will outnumber group y" implies "y are the good, x are the bad". --bender235 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is racism, as the definition of "racial minority" (and the individual "minority" groups) is flexible, and has changed over the past decade. Hence, the statement is only correct when noting what definition of "racial minority" (previously non-(non-hispanic-white), with the parentheses necessary to avoid confusion), or making the statement subject to change with time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is utter nonsense. That would mean saying "there was a socialist minority in the Germany, which became majority in 1918" makes me a demagog or something like that. --bender235 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, for example, at the vile http://www.davidduke.com/general/2174_2174.html for exactly that sort of usage. The projection from the USCB is basically neutral, but it's often used by racist groups in a racist way. This is similar to how there are certainly things to discuss about the theory of evolution, but you have to be quite careful saying that you have doubts about it, or you'll get lumped in with the creationist/ID crowd, because it's become a codeword for them. I'm just suggesting a certain amount of caution here. Rwessel (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's some sort of risk that racist groups use it in a racist way. A lot of things in Wikipedia are risky in this regard. Or in basically all encyclopedias in general. People might use this to print t-shirts, you never know. But then again, do you want to censor Wikipedia? --bender235 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro This is definitely notable. One, because the United States has been a historically white nation and minority rights have been an important issue. Also, if this is taken out there are dozens of other facts on pages of other years that have should be taken out for similar lack of value value like passing distances of asteroids, planet transits, and expirations of obscure contracts, among countless others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mramz88 (talk • contribs)
  • Pro It will be a historical milestone for the United States, somewhat like the election of Obama. The Universe Is Cool (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool[reply]

Moscow 2042[edit]

Something about "Moscow 2042" is perhaps worth to be added to the "In fiction" section. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2042. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipses[edit]

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2042&oldid=1196964768"