Talk:22nd century/Archive 1

anniversaries, and reason for existence
Should we really have information about Australia's 200th anniversary here? I mean, what's to stop someone from creating a page for 3901, Australia's 2000th anniversary? BobbyLee 07:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing. It is a remarkably stupid page.  Apprently, Wikipedia is a crystal ball. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 12:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I came here wanting to ask how this page can exist in light of the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy? --Cassavau 04:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The rational is the same for this page as the 2016 Summer Olympics. As I understand it, the page is not intended to predict future events but to give understanding to any factual information that is related to the year, or century.  Some good examples are astronomical events.  One thing I do think should occur is that the heading for anniversaries are renamed as such, as opposed to "events."
 * Every single nation in existance now that exists in 100 years will have a Centenial sometime between 2100 and 2199. I think it's rediculous to mention specific centennials here.  The Jade Knight 20:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mention the 100th anniversary of September 11th, considering that at the time I write this, it's only been 5 1/2 years? --Unexplainedbacon 09:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

fictional
Im appaled that no-one has cited that War will have begun in 2101. - Kahou
 * I'm appalled that you even bother mentioning that you vandalized the page with nonsense. Dan0 00 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

perhaps im missing something but what would POSSIBLY make you think war will begin in 2101? 80.42.239.82 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He's referring to the Zero Wing video game, which is already mentioned on the page. Dan0 00 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2101
2101 only has an html comment under it. I do not see the reason to keep it. Phy1729 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, put the comment at the end of #2100 AND at the beginning of the next section (2107?), so it will be seen when newbies add 2101: "war was beginning". &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

2103
Why is the biological extinction of almost everything in the year 2103 deleted, it is the worst case scenario of the future, and there fore is the most likely scenario in just 95 years. Emperor of Cynicism 9:18 P.M 24/06/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.160.228 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No sources. Also, apparently, you're in time zone UTC-16?  Apparently, you're not on this planet.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

2100 References are in wrong page
It is (or should be) well-known that the decades begin on the 1, not the zero. Events in the year 2100 properly belong to the 2091-2100 decade.Kdietz (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There can be debate about whether the 210th decade will begin in 2100 or 2101, but by definition the 2100's will begin in 2100... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Useless
after reading this article. All i can say is it's all garbage, a bunch of useless information that nobody cares. What is the point of this article? Most of us will be dead by the time 2100s. What is the point of listing all the fictional events? They are not something that will actually happen, are they? This is stupid.Trongphu (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The rationale for including non-fictional vs. fictional events is completely different, and you seem to lump the two together. For the non-fictional events, it depends on whether you want to look to the future or not.  Some people are very interested in knowing that the sun will greatly expand to encompass the earth's orbit in several billion years... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be deleted
should be deleted --JFM 12:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

References now Added (2110s)
This artical has now been referenced to verify the accuracy of its claims, this former redirect is now officially a proper, and citated artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect (2110s)
Any reason why this can't redirect to 22nd century, like the pages for other decades in this century and subsequent centuries (e.g. 2160s)? If sufficient information about the decade became available it could always be turned into a proper article -- Gurch 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

References now Added (2120s)
This artical has now been referenced to verify the accuracy of its claims, this former redirect is now officially a proper, and citated artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

References now Added (2130s)
This artical has now been referenced to verify the accuracy of its claims, this former redirect is now officially a proper, and citated artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect (2140s)
Any reason why this can't redirect to 22nd century, like the pages for other decades in this century and subsequent centuries (e.g. 2160s)? If sufficient information about the decade became available it could always be turned into a proper article -- Gurch 17:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

References now Added (2140s)
This artical has now been referenced to verify the accuracy of its claims, this former redirect is now officially a proper, and citated artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

References now Added (2150s)
This artical has now been referenced to verify the accuracy of its claims, this former redirect is now officially a proper, and citated artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

some of the fictional events are too stubby and need more details
many of the fictional events of the 2150s decades need more details they just aren't very readable and informative for instance more details from the movie avatar need to be in there atleast one or 2 more sentences this entire decade page is very short as it is and far from complete. 76.244.151.164 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

References now Added (2160s)
This artical has now been referenced to verify the accuracy of its claims, this former redirect is now officially a proper, and citated artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Now Referenced (2170s)
This artical has now been referenced, it still will require more information, but the information it has, has now been verrified.

Redirect (2180s)
Any reason why this can't redirect to 22nd century, like the pages for other decades in this century and subsequent centuries (e.g. 2160s)? If sufficient information about the decade became available it could always be turned into a proper article -- Gurch 17:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. Done. CDC (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Now Referenced (2180s)
This artical has now been referenced, it still will require more information, but the information it has, has now been verrified.

Now Referenced (2190s)
This artical has now been referenced, it still will require more information, but the information it has, has now been verified.