Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Timeline of the future to preserve the history and references. Editors are encouraged to merge there and to year articles as appropriate (and as has already begun). Pastordavid (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future timeline of Earth

Future timeline of Earth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This page is useless. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on years in the future with exactly the same purpose. It would take forever for the article to be complete; In fact, I'd doubt it is possible. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just a set of disparate predictions that already are listed elsewhere and serve no real purpose on their own. I disagree with the person that says we should not only keep this article, but make it much longer. SeanMD80talk | contribs 13:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No, all the info are not present elsewhere. And a short article needs improvement, not deletion. These pridictions are based on extensive scientific research by reputed scientists and research institutes. This article documents the events which have great impact on Earth. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this is already covered by individual years articles (not to mention articles on upcoming centuries and even millennia). I would recommend merging any sourced events that haven't been listed already in the applicable years articles, as well as adding any of the sources used here that aren't used elsewhere. 23skidoo (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to go along the lines of "crystal-balling". These are all predictions, speculation, and expectations for the future. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. -Koryu Obihiro (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Scientific prdictions are not crystall-balling. Explain why you are telling the article in not encyclopedic? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate and too authoritative. Earlier I attempted to move this to Timeline of events predicted by future studies, as that title would better reflect the basic premise for the article. However, without any way to objectively judge the relative importance of possible future events and the veracity of their claimants, any article on the topic seems arbitrary. Since there are individual articles on such topics as the risks of impact with Near-Earth objects, the implications of climate change, the future evolution of the Solar System, not to mention the entries in Category:Years in the future, I have trouble conceiving any use for this list. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This made me laugh. This is basically the definition of crystal ballery and most of the article is WP:OR involving Global Warming. There are a few inevitable facts here (the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with the Milky Way, the eventual expansion of the Sun in a Red Giant), but otherwise it's in total violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Doc Strange (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Prove why you are telling it crystall-balling? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Scientific theories don't fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Surely the future of the earth is notable!--58.111.143.164 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect after some consideration.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to earth, all of it can be mentioned on the page for planet earth--58.111.143.164 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(talk|Contributions) 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Anetode is quite correct about verifiable speculation. The crystal ball policy, q.v., does not apply to verifiable speculation and reliable analyses performed outside of Wikipedia, which what is listed here is. (The policy explicitly says that it is addressing unverifiable speculation and original research. I encourage the above editors to refresh their memories of it.) About half of the predictions here have citations to enable readers to verify that such events have, indeed, been predicted, based upon external analyses. I tried to check out the source for one prediction, selected at random, and actually found a second source for it!

    However, this article is a simple duplicate of timeline of the future, even down to the fact that, although editors haven't tried to make it such, it has developed into a roughly logarithmic timeline anyway. Furthermore, the imprecision of the dates given for the medium and far future predictions, such as the Arctic sea being ice-free in the summer (the one that I checked), lends itself more naturally to the logarithmic scale. (The second source that I found said "within the next century". And, indeed, that (general) prediction is already listed on timeline of the future as within the next 10-100 years. I've added the specific prediction, citing the source that I found.)

    The WP:CRYSTAL policy does not apply. Some of this content is verifiable. The article is simply a duplicate of a better, more appropriately arranged, article that we already have. Just merge it there. No deletion is required. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    • A small problem with the timeling of the future article, it's too short, and also it has no sources. We need to merge both if anything, then expand the article subject thousandfold. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Merging both is what I just wrote. Uncle G (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Collabrate. (edit conflict)This isn't a vote for either keep, delete, or neutral, but a suggestion. Surely many of our readers will want to know about the future. It really helps to have all the information in one place, then, doesn't it? So, let's link ALL the articles as seealsos to each other that have to do with future projections of global and universal potential expected destined details! Where can I find this information? We need some sort of article that will tell us this in one place, or close to it, so readers don't have to go to a hundred different places then try to remember all of it, and worse try to remember where these come from! Must be better worth it to go to space.com, livescience.com, discover.com, etc... ... ... . We need some sort of page, maybe a portal or WikiProject page that will tell us where to find this information. I too thought this was crystal balling at first, so I decided to try and work on it. No I don't think it'll be worth much effort to try and work on it if it's going to be deleted. I know, you can include perhaps thousands, or even tens of thousands of potential predicted events into this article. There are probably a total of several thousand articles related to this subject. So, we have a dilemma here. If we keep this article as it is, it will be deleted. If we work our butts off trying to expand it and merge several thousand articles, it will be split or remerged into other articles and the whole article will be useless. If we keep it in-between it will be both. What about a whole article like, list of future-related articles, or link all those several thousand articles from see also links, then link more from those, then more from those...until we get enough information in one place. Seriously, I can't even find much information about the future anymore, like what actually are the eight or more stars expected to come close to the sun within the next million years? Perhaps the only way I can find that out is either try searching Wikipedia, which will take forever, searching Google, which will take even more forever, asking on the reference desk, but maybe they don't know, checking out an article like blueshift, but I don't know if they can list all of them, downloading Celestia, which only offers views from other stars and I'm not sure if it can track proper motion...why don't we just wait until we're borgs? Well, because that's speculation as well. We need some kind of article that can include large amounts of predictions about the future, while not crossing the line of crystal balling. Remember that this is sourced, and it is somewhat possible to work on the content, removing the crystals, keeping the content. In theory, it is possible to build up and article like this, but it will take forever to include everything, and when we suceed either Wikipedia has been swallowed by sea level rise, or most of the many thousand events will have already either have been past history, or never happened. Can be wait until they happen? No, most of us can't live 1.4 million years in order to witness Gliese 710 appear as bright as Antares. Some things can be predicted without developing crystals, like census predictions of world population, as long as we mention it is the census' prediction and we don't find too many conflicting sources. Obviously we can't predict everything, but many of the things we can predict have reliable sources: they're predicted by them, not us. So, if anyone is crystalballing, it's the reliable source. I think one of the important purposes and advantages of Wikipedia is to have all the infomation in one place, so we don't have to spend years searching on Google, which by then the information might not be useful anymore. Well, Wikipedia is huge. I mean, who searching for the possibilities of future on wiki is going to be able to visualize and get the exact spelling and word usage correct, with no prior knowledge of naming of Wikipedia articles, "Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth"? How are they to know how the parts, "civilization", "humans", and "planet Earth" are ordered? How are they to know that "humans" isn't spelt "humanity", that "planet Earth" isn't spelt as "Earth" or "the world", how do they know that "Risks" isn't "hazards", how do they know that there is no serial comma? Of course they could search, but they might use a Google-like search method, like "risks hazards future Earth humans danger potential doomsday possibilities projections predictions"? That they might use on Youtube, but it probably wouldn't work too well here. How do they know, then, that this article exisists? They could look up "Doomsday", then read their way through all the see also links. Obviously, that means there are too many different articles on different but ultimately related subjects. In fact, there are so many articles that it's like Google. What we need, is a collabration effort or a Wikiproject that will include information with answers to questions like, "What will the constellations look like in a million years", or "What star within the next 100 million years will have the highest gravitational pertrebution to the Solar system"? Do we have articles on potential future scenarios like robot takeover of Earth or the cooldown of the core? Do we know on Wikipedia when peak oil, peak natural gas, peak coal is expected to take place? Sure, most of this is speculation, but there are predictions and projections made by reliable sources. If we include all this as crystal balling, then why have anything about the future? Indeed, the line between crystal balling and non-crystal balling can at times be very thin. So, to conclude, we need some kind of collabration in order to put the information that is so hard to search on Wikipedia otherwise we will have to ask the reference desk, all in a place, through links, that makes it for our readers, and our edittors, to easily find. We shouldn't need to ask every few days in order to find all the information on Wikipedia we need to find. Before I fall asleep, bye. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a friendly comment that I can't read that much unbroken text at once! — Matt Crypto 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, edit, and rename to something like Predicted crises on Earth or something like that. The policies against speculation prevent editors from crystal balling, but it doesn't prohibit predictions of the future from published reliable sources from being documented in Wikipedia. Most of the items on this chart aren't crackpot theories; they're legitimate predictions from reputable scientists. The article is badly named, but has a place as a kind of chronology glossary of impending doom. Torc2 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic despite being WP:INTERESTING. JJL (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Prove the article is unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I just wonder how the article is being said absurd. If it is absurd, then 100, 22nd century all articles will be absurd. The article is writen from a scientific viewpoint and incorporates all the events (in planetary levgel including events in environmental, astronomical and other fields which have imapct on Earth) predicted in future. I agree the article need rapid expansion, but it is an excelent work after finishing. The article can be renamed Predicted crises on Earth or something, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The events which the article documents are based on scientific research, not opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Or it could be merged into the appropriate year articles and delete. This list will never be complete. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it will be complete, just you wait and see! You'll see! You'll all see!!! Mwhah hah hahhah! Seriously though, being open-ended isn't sufficient cause to delete a list. (There's even a template for that.) Torc2 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article doesn't make a distinction between the future of Earth (the planet), and the humans who live there. It also needs a lead with clear inclusion criteria. If the article were restricted to scientific predictions on what will happen to the planet, I'd change my vote. All the notable planned stuff that humans will do is far too broad a list. --Phirazo 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Why? - ∅ (∅), 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I second this sentiment. Adding it to that list kind of demeans the legitimate scientific nature of the article. It's like an NPOV categorization. Torc2 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There's nothing in the article that has anything to do with SF or fantasy; I've removed it from the list. - ∅ (∅), 07:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as this article is coathanger for synthesis and original reseach. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Identify where is the synthesis and original reseach. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)]
      • Yes, verifiability is not the issue here, but rather duplication of content. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not really a duplication if it's presenting the material in a new perspective. It's just like how lists and categories can present the same information differently, yet WP:CLS specifically advises that they're not supposed to be in competition. There's nothing that excludes Timeline presentation of material for easy overview; it's just a different form of summary. Torc2 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Note Ridiculus. Ridiculas deletion sorting. This article have been taken in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction. Ridiculas deletion sorting. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as currently written. It's an interesting idea for an article, but we simply can't use the wording "X will happen" on Wikipedia without breaking either OR, NPOV or indulging in crystal-ball gazing. It's also difficult to be balanced in the choice of what predictions you hang on the timeline. To what extent would you include the various eschatologies of the Abrahamic religions, for example? It's not acceptable, by NPOV, to write this from the "scientific viewpoint" (as the author asserts it is). "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future", and all that. — Matt Crypto 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To no extent, as that would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Anyone can found a religion and write in their holy scriptures that the world will explode in 2036, whereas in science you'd have to provide some evidence that this is likely to happen. The scientific point of view is the neutral point of view. - ∅ (∅), 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • We should always be careful to make sure we give treatments of ideas in proportion to their prominence, but that's a separate matter. I'm sorry, but if you think NPOV is the scientific point of view, then you've fundamentally misunderstood NPOV. This is not really the place to discuss that, of course. — Matt Crypto 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe some people have fundamentally misunderstood what science is? NPOV is the substance of which science is made. This is an article about what is actually likely to happen in the real world, and thus falls under the scope of science, not religion. I see nothing in WP:NPOV or WP:NPOVFAQ that contradicts my understanding of a neutral point of view, but again this is not the place to discuss that. If I'm reading our policy wrong, please feel free to enlighten me on my talk. - ∅ (∅), 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment - The first complaint sounds like just a minor content issue; something that could be solved through rewording. If the article is introduced with the clear statement that these are potential earth catastrophes that have been published in reliable sources, it pretty much eliminates every concern, including NPOV. If you were concerned that religion is underrepresented, there is End time and Apocalyptic literature. Torc2 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is redundant to many years in the future articles. Chris! ct 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename and cleanup per Torc2 Hobit (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —∅ (∅), 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Timeline of the future, or the other way around. - ∅ (∅), 07:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Delete as redundant to future year articles, but most definitely not as WP:CRYSTAL. Sorry Otolemur, but there's nothing here that isn't already found somewhere else on the wiki. - ∅ (∅), 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This info cannot be merged with Timeline of the future, because the Timeline of the future article is about "Timeline of future" (which include the future timeline of Earth, sports, film, universe, solar system everything), and this article is about only the future timeline of Earth(in planetary level). The subject matter of the two articles are different. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to closing administrator Most of the delete votes here are based on ignorance in Future studies, most people gave delete vote here ignored Futurology and Future studies. Some people say it duplication of other articles, but this is neither inscientific, nor duplication of any other article. This article documents the timeline of events on planetary level which will have great impact on Earth, this article documents these is a scientific approach, these are not speculation or personal opinion. I agree the article needs improvement, but it does not mean we should be happy with deleting it. An underdeveloped article needs improvement, not deletion. Many people gave delete vote by saying this article is crystall ball. But scientific predictions with references from reputed scientists and reputed research organisations are not crystall ball. This is a well-referenced article, and will be a asset after finishing. I will request the closing administrator to evaluate this, as most of the delete votes are Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it, and incorrect implication of crystall ball. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Otolemur speaks words of wisdom. See also Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death - while this might be an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, I'd like to point out that other scientific crystal ball articles do exist, and are neither deleted nor rewritten for "NPOV" with respect to Abrahamic eschatology, which would be just as ludicrously absurd as teaching the controversy in every timeline of the past. We don't do that, and I cannot imagine why we should treat the future any differently. - ∅ (∅), 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I, the nominator, agree with you on all counts except one: it is still a duplication of content on the year, decade, century etc. articles. All this could be merged into them with ease. I agree, this ins not crystal balling and not enough refs, but Ijust wanted to point out the uselessness of the article. Editorofthewiki (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I changed my !vote to delete, but I still stand behind my argument that this should not be deleted as a crystal ball article (but rather because it's redundant). :-) - ∅ (∅), 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further comment to closing administrator Some people are claiming that this article is duplication of other articles. The people who claim this will not be able to prove it because their claim is baseless. May be some events in future will be present in that year article, but this article has a wide range, and many of the events present in this article are not present in that year articles. Many events are described in this article, which wikipedia has no year article. So it is a complete baseless claim. The article is based on Future studies. This article will be improved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Further comment to disprove Otelemur Sure there are many years with no Wikipedia article. They get divided into decades, centuries, and finally millenia. You are saying that this is a completely baseless claim. Here's one example, from the 11th millennium and beyond article, the furthest future article here:

Future timeline of Earth: ...

  • c. 6,500,000,000
    • The Sun will become a red giant and any remaining life on Earth, and possibly Earth itself, will be destroyed.

11th millennium and beyond: ...

...

Now how is my claim baseless? Want more proof, Otelemur? Here it is from the article 2100s:

Future timeline of Earth: ...

  • 2100
    • 12% (about 1250) of the bird species existing at the beginning of the 21st century are expected to be extinct or threatened with extinction.[3]

...

2100s:

...

  • By 2100, 12% (about 1250) of the bird species existing at the beginning of the 21st century are expected to be extinct or threatened with extinction, according to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 4, 2006.

...

I could go on an on forever, since this article is nothing more than a rephrazing of other articles, and in some cases, a copy of them. Therefore, I don't understand howmy claim is "baseless" since I easily found that information from several articles. If you, instead of me, had to do the research, then maybe you would understand me. I challenge you to disprove my claim now. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment to closing administrator: The people who claimed this article is duplication misinterpreted my statement. I had already said that "some events in future will be present in that year article". The people in his defence shows some of those events present in those year articles, but the people failed to prove that the other evnts, majority of the evnts given here are duplication. The people had showed only four events which are present in other articles, but failed to prove that majority of the evnts described here are present in other articles or not. Also these article has a particular purpose, i.e. to describe the timeline. In wikipedia an event described in a particular year article may be present in other date articles, because the event happened in that date and in that year. It does not mean one is another duplication. As I have already said, again saying that an underdeveloped article needs expansion, not deletion. After completion, this article will be an asset, this article has a particular topic, i.e. Future studies. So if four evnts are present in that year articles, this article's value do not become less. The majority of the events described here are not present anywhere, and this article will be expanded. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will request the closing administrator at four things:

  • First, many delete votes are based on saying this article is crystall ball, but crystall ball do not apply here. Because these are scientific predictions by reputed scientists and research organizations based on scientific research.
  • Second, most of the delete votes ignored Future studies and Futurology.
    • How does this apply in any way, shape, or form? It's justy an article explaining, you guessed it, Future studies and Futurelogy. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Third, some people said this article a duplication, but as I have showed above, this is false claim.
    • And as I have shown below, it is not a false claim. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And finally that this article is a part of Future studies and has great potential. It will be expanded. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • All the great potential lies in the year articles, dear friend. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yet another comment to closing administrator Do I have to prove every fact here is written elsewhere? It is, but I thought that four examples would be enough to convince you. I guess I will have to prove my point again by doing the menial task of showing my point. Also, Otelemur, how does this serve a practical purpose? You stated:
...Also these article has a particular purpose, i.e. to describe the timeline....

How does this describe the timeline? Besides, all additions to this article could be placed elsewhere, into the decade, century, millenia articles. Please, closing admin, understand Otolemur's incredibly weak statements (and bad spelling) before youdo anything to this article. It might seem as though this is a no consensus, but in reality my points easily trump Otelemur's. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment to editors What is with all the notes to the closing admin? They are going to read the entire AfD discussion, not just the parts that say "Hey admin! Read this!". --Phirazo 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And oh, how I pity the closing admin for this mess. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorofthewiki's List of Duplication of Content in the "Future timeline of Earth"

coming soon if my point does not get across, but feel free to do it yourself.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Anthony Kendall, The Final Total Eclipse
  2. ^ Anthony Kendall, "The Final Total Eclipse"
  3. ^ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 4, 2006
  • Keep Adequate sort of a summary. i frankly do not see the absurdity. It's understood that this is somewhat speculative in some aspects--but that is no harm. Sensible speculation with some basis to it is not banned by CRYSTAL. DGG (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, youfail to realise that thisis a duplication of content which would look much better in the year articles. I agree with you on everything else, though. Editorofthewiki (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Another comment to closing administrator I will request the closing administrator to note the fact that the people who called this article a duplication of other article showed only four events which are present in other year articles. Presence of only four events in other year articles do not imply that this article is duplication. So calling this article duplication of other articles is a blatant misuse.

  • The closing administrator, please read the article. You yourself will understand that apart from the four events, which the people showed in his defence, the majority of the events described in the article are not present anywhere. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes they are. And even if they weren't, they would look better under the decades, years, centuries, and millenia. Want some more? Here they are:

Future timeline of earth:

2020:

Future timeline of earth:

2030:

See what I mean? Now we have 10 examples.Editorofthewiki (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to closing administrator The people who nominated this deletion has now started trolling and started to add information from this article to other year article. The people is showing the information in other articles has added this information there. These were not present previously. The people copy-pasted these information from this article to other articles. So please see that why this article will be deleted. There is no wikipedia rule that same information cannot be present in separate articles. If reader want to know the timeline of events in future, then what will he/she do? What is the purpose of wikipedia? Wikipedia is meant for giving the reader encyclopedic knowledge which he/she wants. It is not a valid argument that if some inormation is present in an article, then the same information cannot be included in other article. Please see that the information are present indiscriminately in various future year articles. The information given in this article is not present in the same format in another any one article, but are present indiscriminately in numerous articles. Now if a reader has come in wikipedia to learn about the future timeline of Earth, then what he/she would do? Will he/she check the numerous year articles, is it possible for him/her? Please consider what is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Please consider what is the purpose of wikipedia. This article has a particular purpose, i.e. to give the reader a clear view of the timeline of future which have great impact on Earth. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.