Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/2012 phenomenon

2012 phenomenon
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Today's featured article/requests.


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new TFAR nom underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/December 20, 2012 by BencherliteTalk 11:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)



The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs according to which cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on 21 December 2012. This date is regarded as the end-date of a 5,125-year cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Various astronomical alignments and numerological formulae have been proposed as pertaining to this date, though none have been accepted by mainstream scholarship. A New Age interpretation of this transition is that this date marks the start of a time in which Earth and its inhabitants may undergo a positive physical or spiritual transformation, and that 2012 may mark the beginning of a new era. Others suggest that the date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe. Scenarios suggested for the end of the world include the arrival of the next solar maximum, an interaction between Earth and the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, or Earth's collision with a planet called "Nibiru". Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012. Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture. (Full article ...)

If there is a date to post this on the main page, it would be this one.  Serendi pod ous  00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please calculate a point tally and add to the chart above so this article will show in the TOC. I've linked the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the date here so that the table of contents works. I see you added three points to the chart: please specify here how you arrive at 3 points.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see date relevance for one, promoted over a year ago for another one and widely-covered (32 interwikis) for a third point. Didn't look at the FA nominator's previous TFAs, if any, but I arrived at that score in about no seconds. GRAPPLE   X  01:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah; those three. I was thinking of adding unusual material as well, but I wasn't sure how often this sort of topic had been covered.  Serendi pod ous  01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still not seeing it. I thought widely-covered was two points.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fixed.  Serendi pod ous  01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it deserves more than 1 point for date-relevance. Since the article is about 21 December of this year, it should count at least as much as a 100-year anniversary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs) 15:57, November 29, 2012


 * Comment. - The supposed date significance is in fact an error. The date the Mayan's "predicted" already occurred several months ago. ~ GabeMc  (talk contribs) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. People who make this claim really, really don't understand what a leap year is. A calendar doesn't "fall behind" another calendar because it doesn't have a leap year. That's like saying that we lose an hour a year because of daylight savings time. Weird thing is, the Long Count doesn't even count years in the first place. The correlation between the Long Count and the Gregorian calendar has been established within a ~48 hour window for decades.  Serendi pod ous  01:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Well, if we ran anything else when this article was a valid choice we'd be, to quote Dumbledore, "nincompoops". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The 20th is okay too, very well argued. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this as a once in a lifetime opportunity. I'm guessing everyone will be looking this up that day anyway, may as well make it convenient. —Torchiest talkedits 14:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with December 20. —Torchiest talkedits 20:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Crisco and Torchiest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Of course this should run around the time when people claim that transformation/doom will come, but might people consider moving it up to December 20? As I've said here before, "As the article states (here), some people have actually asked NASA whether they should kill themselves before the 'event'. I think the more people read this article, the better, because they're less likely to take this garbage seriously. Run it on December 20, I say, when the media attention is at its peak but before people feel the urgent need to off themselves." If this article is scheduled for December 21, it won't appear on the main page until the day is already partly over in parts of the world. In contrast, if the article runs on December 20, it will be visible before and during the day of fake doom. Even after it moves out of the TFA slot, it will appear on the main page as one of the the "recent featured articles" links under the TFA, so it will be visible throughout December 21 in every time zone. That might actually maximize visibility.


 * And, as User:Sadads said, "The article will likely need some significant changes on the day or directly following the day because of significant news coverage surrounding the event." If I were Serendipodous, I would find it a real pain to deal with that and a main page appearance at exactly the same time. A. Parrot (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sensible suggestion. We've had this issue before because, to get the points, one has to put it on the exact day; if Serendipodous agrees that the day before is better, I suggest we grant the points anyway.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It does make sense. My only concern is that Wikipedia might be accused of scaremongering if it posted before the actual day.  Serendi pod ous  19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have delegates who make the big bucks so they can make those decisions ... you might want to ping on this one.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support since it's the long-held known date of the end of the universe, presumably it should have a date score in excess of unity. However, as it was the Mayans who decided this was our D-Day, the article should be featured at D-Day in Mayan-land, so on 20 December..... then we can all update it until, say, 1800 GMT, when the world will end, and interminable debates like this will be a mere blip in a blip in a blip of a microcosm of a pseudo-existence.  Run it on the 20th.  Good luck everyone.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for running this article the day before. I think we should be sensitive to the nature of the article's subject, which says that December 21 would not be a good day for visiting Wikipedia due to the apocalypse. December 20 is the day to run this, as A. Parrot and SandyGeorgia. If protocol was to run this article on the day of the event, then I would support that as a second choice.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per The Rambling Man's rationale. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support either date fine, though an evil gremlin on my shoulder is saying "run it on the 22nd!" Hee her!   Montanabw (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support funny tale :)--Tomcat (7) 13:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for the 22nd, per User:Raul654/archive25. 21st is okay too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for running it on the 22nd. GabeMc  (talk contribs) 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for the 22nd . The 21st is also OK with me. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Serendipodous' cautions, changed to support for 21st (oppose for 22nd). 20th is also OK with me. Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to those suggesting the 22nd: If we posted this on the 22nd, and someone committed suicide on the 21st, chances are we'd be wondering if we could have stopped it, no?  Serendi pod ous  09:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Changed my support to 21st (or 20th). Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for 20th. Public attention to this nonsense is likely to peak the day beforehand, which fits nicely with running in on the 20th. I'm not comfortable with the 22nd; it's funnier, but I think an educational role is best served by helping raise understanding of the (complete lack of any) issue beforehand rather than afterwards, when it's a bit moot. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)