Talk:Futureculture

Importance of Subject
I have added quite a few new links and info to the page so it should be passable. As such, i have also removed the "warning" statement, so hopefully the page is no longer considered for removal.Riemerb 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to beg for a bit more time so that list members can contribute further to this article. I believe the mailing list does have importance, at least as an historical marker for the early evolution of the internet. And so this article potentially has interest as well, at least in a more fleshed out form.There are a number of articles on Futureculture on the net, and yes we have been slack in getting all this tied into the wikipedia article. Sorry, I'm new at editing. Katiemur 16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why someone marked the article for deletion. There hasn't been any recent discussion on the talk page about the notability of the article. However, I added some references to published material: books, magazine articles and the Honoria in Ciberspazio opera with several Real Life performances behind it. I hope that will place some notability on the FutureCulture mailing list. MC 20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, like it says on the article, we should provide information as to what importance this article has. To be honest, I have no idea why this should be on any importance to anyone not involved in the original discussion group. Unless someone can come forward with more (and is familiar with the group) I don't see why this article should not be deleted. Opinions? Robovski 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Robovski
 * In the early-mid '90s, Futureculture was one of the exemplary "pioneer" communities on the net—and it's still around, with many of those early members involved. I agree that, as it stands, the entry is something less than a stub. The solution, it seems to me, is to let folks make the case. I suspect a very interesting article can be developed. I'll contribute as time allows. Libertatia 15:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Importance of this page
The Future Culture list was and still is an important e-mail based discussion forum for anyone interested in topics related to future culture. It is often seen as a 'sister' list of Cybermind, which also has a wikipedia entry. Both lists were quite famous at the time when e-mail discussion lists were at the height of their popularity and both lists played an important role in the early stages of forming on-line communities.

Robovski: I am surprise at the suggestion of removing this page simply because you are unfamiliar with the Future Culture mailing list. Also, could you indicate what needs to be done for you to remove the label 'To be Wikified'. If you compare this article with the article on Cybermind, then surely this article would meet standards, no?


 * OK, suggesting removal was (an albeit heavy-handed) a way to get people to come forward to contribute. I have no problem with including this article, but at the time there wasn't much to the article. I generally fall on the side on inclusion of even small bits of trivia as this is the people's encyclopedia - simply the paragraphs above help make the article worthwhile, should such items be added in. Also, I didn't put on the 'To be Wikified' label, I just did some formatting but thought the article wasn't very much of anything at the time. Hence my actions here in discussion and my leaving the tag on. If you think it's good enough I'll not stop you from removing the tag. Robovski 01:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What standards exactly?
I understand the need not to have clutter, but what are the guidelines for inclusion? Besides the Cybermind example above, there is also Kibo's entry, which is for a person not that well known outside of Usenet. - Anthony Hersey 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Grounds of common usage & lack of a better alternative word or phrase ( faute de mieux )- keep the entry
...also The Future Culture Movement ( along with Modernism,Category:Modernism) & Future Culture the band, if there is one. -jrc 290807 --Rjcain 01:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Homepage no longer exists
FYI: Although Future Culture is still active, the homepage http://www.futurec.org seems to have been taken over by some obscure Japanese business…--Aschmidt (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Futureculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628091100/http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/ to http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Futureculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829181900/http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/wordbody.html to http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/wordbody.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809101606/http://www.evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/futurec/index_body.html to http://evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/futurec/index_body.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809101606/http://www.evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/futurec/index_body.html to http://evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/futurec/index_body.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222090952/http://www.futurec.org/ to http://www.futurec.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)