Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the far future/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 00:14, 21 August 2011 [1].

Timeline of the far future[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Spacepotato, Serendi ^pod ous 09:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been properly sourced and is getting good commentary. Much of the material was taken from the now-redirected page Exasecond and longer, so I have included that page's main contributor as a co-nominator. Serendi ^pod ous 09:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Albacore (talk)

Two deadlinks need replacing

DAB pages need cleaned up

What makes any of the following reliable?

astronomynotes.com

Universe Today.com {a self-published blog}

everything2.com

scotese.com

Conflicting date styles are used in the article (i.e ref one has "Retrieved 2011-06-14" as opposed to ref 10's "Retrieved 29 April 2011")

Ref 19, remove the "year="

Refs 8 has a pp. where a p. should be used

Ref 40, the page numbers should be incorporated into the cite book for consistency

The article currently fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, specifically number two

For the reasons above, I'm opposing for the moment. Albacore (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This could be a very interesting list, but it definitely needs some explanation. From the current two sentence lead section and the image, I would presume that some events (e.g. "Chernobyl exclusion zone becomes habitable") don't belong in this list, but I could be mistaken. The lead should definitely discuss what kind of predictions (astrophysics, geography,...) are included. It would also be nice, to somehow indicate in the list, to what field the events relate, e.g.: "~230 million years — beyond this time, the orbits of the planets become impossible to predict. Chaos theory". bamse (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues have been addressed. Serendi ^pod ous 07:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better, with the new lead which could still be expanded a bit.

Could you give an example for "over long timescales, mathematical models combined with various fields of scientific knowledge have allowed a number of future events to be predicted with a reasonable level of certainty." and mention it in the lead?

I don't understand. There are several examples in the list. Do you want me to cherry-pick one and put it in the lead? Wouldn't that violate WP:UNDUE? Serendi ^pod ous 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sentence to mean, that there have been predictions in the past which turned out to come true. So I am asking for historical predictions (not in the list) which came true. If there are none, this sentence should be rephrased as it is misleading IMHO. bamse (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did you change? bamse (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the sentence: However, since the beginning of the 20th century, mathematical models combined with advances in various fields of scientific knowledge have allowed predictions about the fate of the Earth and the universe to be made with a reasonable level of certainty. Serendi ^pod ous 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still leaves the same question: How do we know the level of certainty? Is there any experimental evidence that those predictions are "reliable"? bamse (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I listed every piece of experimental evidence for every event in this timeline, the timeline would be the size of a dictionary. Serendi ^pod ous 15:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for experimental evidence for the events in this timeline. Referring to the sentence (...to be made with a reasonable level of certainty.), I am basically asking: How do you measure the "level of certainty" for predictions? bamse (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. Serendi ^pod ous 07:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "However", does not make sense now anymore since the second sentence does not say anything about the certainty of predictions. How about writing something like: "these predictions follow from present scientific understanding and models. There is some uncertainty due to [limited understanding of the world, fitting, approximations, incorrect/limited models,...]." I am far from an expert on the topic, so if this does not make sense, please tell me. bamse (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert either, but I don't think the present state of science is really the problem. It's simply that we can never know absolute truth, and can never make absolute predictions, no matter what we know. Anyway, revised. Serendi ^pod ous 15:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do planets and stars live?~~
~~Boldfacing of the article's title is not done anymore in featured lists and in fact the title does not need to be mentioned in the lead either.~~
~~In the lead you require the universe to be open, which is probably not relevant for all of the listed events. Why not put this requirement next to the events for which it is relevant?~~

As far as I can see, you now put a note next to an event which does not require the universe to be open. I'd also put a note on the events that do require the universe to be open (I presume that that's not all the others, since for some events it does not matter whether the universe is open or not. bamse (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Big Rip is arguably the only conceivable event that does -possibly- require the universe to be open. Since there is no other event that requires the universe to be open (after all, the universe could be closed on timescales larger than those listed here), there really is no other place I could put it that would suit your requirements. Serendi ^pod ous 06:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the note currently states "this article assumes the universe is open". Why not write in the note, something like: "this event assumes the universe is open" and to write in the intro that this article assumes that the universe is open or closed on timescales larger than the respective events."?

The only way the universe could be closed on timescales larger than those listed here is if gravity somehow exponentially increases in strength at vast distances. Or dark energy runs out. Since I have no interest in introducing such fanciful ideas into this article, I can just get rid of the information. I only included it because I thought it would be useful, but obviously it is causing too much confusion. Serendi ^pod ous 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. bamse (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the listed events are only of theoretical interest, since something else will have happened before (e.g. "Earth's orbit decay via emission of gravitational radiation"). This would be worth mentioning somewhere (e.g. in the lead). In fact, having those theoretical events in a "Timeline..." article could be a bit misleading. Possibly they'd better go into a Timescales of Physics article instead.

We don't know if those events will happen before then, only that they might. Serendi ^pod ous 18:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Assuming that protons do not decay" is clearly an assumption which is not true (as far as I remember protons do decay), i.e. the related event is purely theoretical. bamse (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we still don't know if protons decay or not. Serendi ^pod ous 05:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My fault. Anyway, I like the sentence (A number of alternate future events are listed, to account for questions still unresolved, such as whether protons decay or whether the Earth will be destroyed by the Sun's expansion into a red giant.) you added to the lead discussing this.

~~I still think that having the field of science encoded next to the events somehow (in color, by footnote, in prose, by transforming the whole thing into a sortable table,...) would be useful.~~

Interesting to see how the fields bunch at certain time periods. Thanks for adding it to the article. Just one more request: Per WP:ACCESS, color should not be "the only method used to convey important information". You could add superscript labels to avoid this. bamse (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just curious, why did you chose to cut sections at 10^303. Neither the previous nor the subsequent event is close to that value.~~
~~The note ("the numbers involved are so great that standard units are effectively meaningless.") needs some more explanation. Also why that point should be at 10^10^26.~~

Just curious, how do you come up with that specific number (10^10^26)? bamse (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come up with it. It's the cited number. Serendi ^pod ous 06:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see a citation for the note. bamse (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the note; it's in the line the note is referencing. Serendi ^pod ous 15:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the note is gone. Is that intentional? bamse (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If it was confusing people, there was no need to add it. Serendi ^pod ous 07:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

~~Possibly you should add {{Dynamic list}} to the article.~~

bamse (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more comments:

Far future should be defined in the lead. bamse (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the cut-off "300 years from now" chosen arbitrarily? Or asked differently, are "far future" and "near future" terms used in literature (if yes, in which way?) or only here? bamse (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a suitable event to separate the near from the far future. If you can, let me know. Serendi ^pod ous 06:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea either. Do I understand correctly that these terms are only used here on wikipedia in order to have a manageable article length? Timeline of the near future goes until the year 2200, so possibly this article should start there (or near future should be extended to cover the time until 300 years from now)? bamse (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended Timeline of the near future to the end of the 23rd century. Serendi ^pod ous 07:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed. Serendi ^pod ous 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I stroke out some above and replied to others. Two more things:

~~Should events be listed that are against experimental evidence? I'd say not, since otherwise one could invent all kinds of events.~~

Are you referring to the Big Rip? There's still a bit of uncertainty about that. Serendi ^pod ous 06:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one I was referring to. What does "Experimental evidence currently suggests" mean anyway? Seems a bit vague, no? bamse (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the source and find out? Serendi ^pod ous 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I had hoped that you could tell me. bamse (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Serendi ^pod ous 07:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Mars's moon Phobos will collide with its surface" probably is meant to mean "...will collide with the surface of Mars" (not with its own surface).~~ bamse (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the lead needs some work and expansion. "present scientific understanding/current scientific understanding" is doubled. Some suggestions for expansion: i) discuss/mention (in more detail then done now) the types of predictions in general. For instance many of the astronomy/astrophysics category are either related to the motion (or location) of celestial bodies or to the developments of stars. "Particle physics" is mainly about decay, etc for other categories. Discuss shortly (in easy terms) what "decay" is, how stars develop (really nothing too detailed here, but I think it would make for a more interesting lead. ii) Discuss error margins (since some events have a "~" and others not) and reasons for them; iii) Discuss/mention assumptions (e.g. open/closed universe) that go into some events; iv) Discuss time scales especially the very large ones. I know that some of this was present before in notes. Take this just as suggestions for an expansion and feel free to disagree or write something else in the lead.
The reference for the Chernobyl event states: "...authorities do not expect the area to be inhabitable for between 180 and 320 years." while this article says 320 years. Isn't there some scientific article that could be referenced instead of a newspaper with a vague reference to "authorities"? Also I am not so sure it belongs into "particle physics", possibly biology or medicine?!

I've had a gander for other references, but they're all too vague; saying things like "centuries" or "years from now". Ultimately, it is the decay rates of the radioactive isotopes, not the durability of the human body, which will determine when the site is habitable again, so particle physics is still the deciding factor I think. Serendi ^pod ous 17:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the connection between "habitability" of the site and the amount of radioactive isotopes falls into medicine/biology. Anyway, leaving "particle physics" for the reason you mention is fine with me. But why do you present the upper estimate (320 years) from the source and not 180 years or an average (250 years) or the interval (180-320 years)? I'd also suspect that there are various opinions/theories concerning this number, so possibly you could add something like: "according to one source" to this event? bamse (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An average between 180 and 320 years would be 250 years (which is probably why they used it, really). 250 years would place it in the Timeline of the near future, which means this timeline would now begin 600 years from now, which would mean I'd either have to add another 3 centuries to Timeline of the near future or create another timeline. Serendi ^pod ous 11:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether it is in the near future timeline or where you do the cut between near and far future. But since the source says 180 to 320 years, this should be somehow reflected in this article, and presenting just the upper limit could be seen as violating WP:NPOV. bamse (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped it out. I also found a good cutoff point: Wikipedia's most distant future timeline is 11th millennium and beyond; that is to say, 8000 years from now. So this will take care of everything beyond that. Serendi ^pod ous 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikilink publishers in references if possible.~~
~~Some references (e.g. 35) don't have access dates.~~
~~If "Accessed online" and "Retrieved" is the same, only one of the two should be used.~~
~~Not sure why you have: "See isotopes of iron"~~
~~"The mean half-life of a proton according to some theories." is unreferenced~~
I understand the simplified explanations for the second and third last events. However these simplified versions are the same, while the scientific statements are different. I wonder how the difference ("a black hole with the mass within the presently visible region of our universe" versus "an isolated black hole of stellar mass") affect the simplified explanation. Is the universe the black hole in the model?
~~Don't join the ice age and Niagara falls in one box.~~
~~Supply imperial units. You can use {{convert}} for that.~~

As a rule, since science uses only metric, scientific articles tend to only use metric too. Serendi ^pod ous 17:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a metric guy myself, but MOS:CONVERSIONS is not that clear in this respect regarding scientific articles. Either way, there are very few units which would require conversion and I leave it up to you to decide how to deal with them. bamse (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possibly needs a "the" in "can be ejected from orbit around their parent objects"~~
In "proton half-life" sometimes you wikilink to proton, sometimes to Proton decay and "mean half-life of a proton" is not wikilinked at all (but should).

Still one unlinked "proton half-life" (at 3×10^34). bamse (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wikilinked it. bamse (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) bamse (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues addressed(?) Serendi ^pod ous 11:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Won't pretend that I'm knowledgeable about the material, so I'll stick to formatting issues and the like...

A one paragraph lead is usually considered a bit thin for an FL nowadays, but this is a large paragraph. My suggestion would be to consider splitting it in two, if a reasonable split point can be found.
100 million: Don't forget an en dash for "K-T extinction".
Is universe supposed to be capitalized or not? I see some variations throughout the table notes.
Similarly, two notes have "Assuming that protons do not decay" or such. One has the "not" in italics and the other doesn't. I'm not a big fan of italicizing text like this, but if it's that important for one note it should be for the other.
Ref 10 requires further formatting.
Publisher of ref 11 (Scientific American) should be italicized as a printed publication.

En dash needed for the page range in ref 34. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed. Serendi ^pod ous 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still see that the reference needs a dash in the page range (now ref 36). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Serendi ^pod ous 13:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Do we really need all those hat notes?
"this list of predictions follows " don't like this in the lead. Can't we reword it? You wouldn't dare write "the article of ..." for FA, would you?

Given that this timeline's cutoff point of 8000 years from now is entirely arbitrary, I don't really know how else to phrase it. Serendi ^pod ous 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you have a good reason for the cutoff point. So talk about that, not about "this list of ...". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply that Wikipedia's future timelines end at the year 10000. Serendi ^pod ous 21:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General readers (e.g. me) don't see that easily. Should be discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? Serendi ^pod ous 21:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By introducing the subject adequately and eloquently. We shouldn't assume that our readers know that Wikipedia's future timelines end at 10000. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reworked. Serendi ^pod ous 20:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is entirely unreferenced, which is normally fine but can you tell me where in the main list each of the lead claims are cited? (e.g. "Ultimately, all events in the Universe are governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy, or a loss of the energy available to do work, must increase over time.")
Lead image caption is interesting, but only if you know what you're looking at. This needs to be accessible to non-experts.
Not sure what the key is telling me. Do you mean (by "mathematics") that it's been worked out that this should happen? Is it a "means of evidence"?
Shouldn't most references with authors be "last, first" in format?

Last, first is only relevant if you're creating an index, and this doesn't have one. Serendi ^pod ous 20:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't our {{cite web}} template have first and last parameters? Why not use them? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why use them? People don't read names last first in the English speaking world, so why introduce an unnecessary level of complexity? There's no need to search out the references; they're not alphabetised, so what's the point of last, first in this context? Serendi ^pod ous 20:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't complex if you use the template. And why argue if you already use last, first for refs 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 30, 37 & 39? Please just be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Price I pay for copying and pasting refs from other articles... Serendi ^pod ous 21:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That yellow/gold seems a bit bright compared to the other, more muted colors. Perhaps tone it down a little? –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subbed. Serendi ^pod ous 07:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.