Category talk:Years in the future

Why do we need this category?
Is there much point in having a "Years of the future" category? Brianjd 06:36, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)


 * It probably a bad idea to have the pages in this category in the first place, but as we have them, we need a category for them as well .. It makes it easier to find all of them, and to sort what needs to be:
 * moved to Dates in Star Wars
 * moved to another one of the Category:Fictional timelines
 * deleted
 * redirected
 * removed
 * rewritten, etc.
 * -- User:Docu


 * We can deal with them in exactly the same way we deal with categories/articles relating to years in the past:
 * Category:Millennia
 * Category:Centuries
 * Category:Decades
 * the appropriate categories for that particular millennium, century and decade. Brianjd 04:25, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * Note that all of the years in the future currently start with "20", "21" or "22". So they can be neatly filed away under those 3 centuries, just like years in the past are (they will also belong under other categories). Any years after that can be merged with each other, I think. Brianjd

CfD discussion
The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. Note that the consensus was to keep this category but delete categories for individual centuries in the future. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 22:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "consensus". Some of my comments were not responded to. Brianjd 04:24, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Category:Years in the future
This category is really stupid. It would still be stupid even if we had a corresponding Category:Years in the past, but we don't. Brianjd 06:23, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


 * Actually I sort of like it. Very Verily 06:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We only need Category:Years in the future to select the "years in the past". Obviously if we delete/redirect all articles in the category, we could delete it. -- User:Docu


 * Keep, if only to prevent categories like Category:23rd century from being created. -Sean Curtin 22:02, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point. -- User:Docu
 * This category is not needed to prevent categories like Category:23rd century from being deleted. 23rd century is in Category:Centuries - what's wrong with that (until, of course, we actually have articles that belong in Category:23rd century)? Brianjd 08:36, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * Extremely opposed to deletion. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Years in the future is and can be interesting for things that are scheduled to happen. For Example, I know that there are already articles on the 2006, 2008, and 2012 US Elections as the Senated Seats are already known.  In Space Exploration there could be links as to when exploration vehicles are due to arrive at certain locations which could then be cross references to other scheduled events.  While I don't think we need to go more than 10-20 years out, much of what is scheduled to happen in the future is and can be written about now, and then categorized for that year.  Sortior 21:45, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * COMMENT wasn't the whole point of this category to avoid stuff like 2058 and 3019 ? 132.205.15.43 03:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I cannot see why we need this category but not Category:Years in the past. Brianjd 06:54, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)


 * Quite simply because with years in the past there are enough articles that they are filed away neatly by century. With years in the future there may be only 30-50 or so articles for years spread out over the next 30-50 centuries. Far simpler to have one "carry-all" category than loads of categories each with one article. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk [[Image:Grutness.jpg|30px|]]]] 07:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The majority of those articles will probably correspond to years in this century or the next couple of centuries. The other articles (the ones that don't exist yet) can probably be merged with each other. I can't see why there would be a categorization problem (remember we have other categories like Category:Years. Brianjd 07:19, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)


 * Keep - we may not know what's going to happen in the future (for the most part anyway), but it can be quite fascinating reading about events which are predicted to occur, even if we are not around when they happen! --Andrew 00:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur with Andrew. jni 06:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:23rd century etc
Delete Category:23rd century, Category:24th century, Category:25th century, Category:26th century, Category:27th century: premature. -- User:Docu
 * Agreed, and it's not like there's anything in these categories anyways... -Sean Curtin 01:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agreed! Brianjd 08:36, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
 * I would delete these categories and keep the "Years in the Future" category discussed above. --Andrew 00:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. No need to delete useful placeholders. jni 06:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should just run a bot to create more "useful" placeholders so that we end up with things like Category:3000000th century. Brianjd 08:26, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Speculation
Years in the future on Wikipedia seem somewhat speculative. --SuperDude 03:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

9/11 Anniversaries
I've noted that they seem to be present every year. I feel that it is repetitive and anyone who was awake in 2001 doesn't need a reminder of the date. It is also very US-centric in that annual notices of the Tsunami, for example, are not listed.

Sort order
I think, if this category is to be kept, we should add sort keys for the articles and categories. May I suggest that the sort key be the 4 digit or 5 digit year which starts the respective category/article. That would keep everything more-or-less in order, except that the 11th Millennium article would be sorted under "1" instead of at the end of the 9s. We'd also need to decide whether 22nd century was sorted before or after 2101; I lean toward after, making the sort key for 2101 2101 0 and the sort key for 22nd century 2201 2. Any other suggestions? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bump, sort of. I'll implement the sort keys shortly, if I don't hear any objections.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL
My attention has been drawn to 2030, the first-ever "future" year article I've looked at. The predictions section is just not credible, and conflicts with site guidelines (crystalball) and policy (verification ... the sources are not reliable in quite a few cases). It's very challenging to write in reliable predictions, and I suggest we don't do this at all. Heaven knows why it's first in the article. Could something be done about this? I've also raised the issue here. Tony   (talk)  12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years might be a better place for this discussion. I tend to agree with you about many of the predictions.  Present documented plans, no matter how unlikely to succeed, (California High-Speed Rail), probably should be included.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)