![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Looking through the 7.1 software archive that 66.134.102.50 added a link to, I realize that I was the one that compiled it and wrote the readme. For the life of me I can't remember when, or how I released it. Or how I lost it. I'm interested to know how the person who put up the link came by it. Leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to let me know. — Clarknova 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From WP:VF
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
From WP:FT
Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.
This article needs cleanup and more sourcing. It is showing its age and has not been revised to meet Wikipedia's rising standards. That said, the proper response to Novelty Theory's crackpot character is to improve the article.
Nonimination for deletion is the lazy way out. It has now been nominated twice. The first vote failed and as of this post the second vote also has a (slim) majority in favor of keeping it. Both have failed.
Deleting articles and expunging records is not the way to advance a rational agenda. If you object to this article's material please improve the criticism section and reference your contributions properly. —
Clarknova (
talk)
20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought in order to be NPOV a lot needed to be said about his claims to Novelty Theory being a "mathematical theory", most mathematicians would disagree to that status. There is very little "mathematical " about it, it is much more numerlogical. Of course the article still needs to be NPOV and respect Mckennas's views but since it is a theory that, if even considered by the mathematical community at large, which it is not do to it's very numerological nature, would be a very controversial theory, and is usually rejected outright by those few mathematicians who have even considered it (it's hard to even find links to such criticisms made by trained mathematicians because it is so very rarely considered do to it's obvious numerologica nature.) It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal to the best of my knowledge (something to be expected considerig McKenna's rejection of the methods of what he called "Western" science--a disrespectful misnomer IMHO considering the many valuable contributions from the East.) I added some material about the controversial nature of the claim, I tried to be NPOV, as a matter of fact the effort was an attempt tp make the article more NPOV, and less lauditory, although fans of McKenna's work might disagree to the success of my NPOV eforts. If you change any of my additions please discuss it here first.
I suspect some might consider relegating all such criticism to the "criticism" section, but since the claims to it being a "mathematical" theory are so dubious I think its appropriate that the controversey of the claim be mentioned where the claim is first stated, especially since the claim is made right next to the very numerological sources. If you don't understand the difference between numerology and mathematics please refrain from attempting to contribute to this portion of the article, as little of use is likely to be added someone who does not know anything about the subject.
For the record I respect some of McKenna's efforts, namely his efforts to preserve plants used by indigenous cultures, I just think a lot of his theories were silly, a feeling which I tried to keep out of the article, only mentioning, in a attempt to make the article less POV, the very real controversy of his claimes to Novelty Theory being on a sound mathematical or scientific ground. -- Brentt 08:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Whats interesting to me is that the work of Dr. Ronald Mallett may fulfill the time travel prophecy by 2012, though i suspect Dr. Rons already got his time machine working. And wouldn't you say that the internet and Wikipedia also fulfill the consciousness shift criteria?
Terrence McKenna is not known to have ever issued such a statement. Indeed, in his published books, interviews, and recorded lectures McKenna consistently treats the theory as seriously as any of his other material.
I've listened to all his lectures I could get my hands on, and have never had the feeling of him treating the thing as a scientific theory. I even read the Invisible Landscape and it is described in an introduction - justifiably so I believe - as akin to a dense alchemical grimoire - that was also my feel for the book - using all theories at their disposal to attempt to explain something unexplainable, incoherent and passionate, but certanly not scientific. True, he did say it was a theory of mathematics, and that is totaly false. Actual factography was never his strong point :), and if confronted with the fact that it isn't math, I think he would have no problems retracting such a statement. He created the wave using just the basic mathematics, and some geometric intuitions, so I think that by seing a mathematical theory he meant only in the sense of dealing with numbers. I dont have the quotes to demonstrate this feeling, will look for them. I dont think he would call the thing a parody - I think he liked it (and how wouldn't he, since it came to him in such a drastic trip?), but was himself split about believing or not in it. But when presenting it, he allways called for people to test it by comparing the predictions of it with their own sense of the important events in history (supposedly he verified the Mayan end date by looking at the italian rennaisance) - thats more akin to other divination methods than science. Also I think he refered to it as his pet theory, and as some freakish object, etc. I see that there is a link in the pseudoscience to novelty theory - and again, he made no claims about it being scientific (I mean it was more like a channeled idea in a trip, totaly irational, antithetical to science), and that was a criterium of what constitues a pseudoscience in the beggining of that article. Just because something appears to one in a trip doesn't make the person that tripped it believe that its necessarely true - though it usualy makes one fond of the idea - for instance a guy in a trip saw an insectoid creature that explained that it is a mental parasite, living of the strength of emotion of the hosts - and he discusses the problem of the reality of such experiences, and is not ready to either believe or dismiss the experience. I think thats the logical adaptive attitude people take towards things they encounter on their trips, especially if tripping so intensly as McKenna, and believe that McKenna shared that aditute. He talked about pearing over the abyss and pulling something out of it - timewave zero was such an irrational object.
-aryah
I have a copy of Timewave Zero 4.3. Is there really a Fractal Time 7.1? I cannot find it. -- Ajay5150
~~GS~~
Can anybody provide me with a link or tell me what McKenna's description of hyperspace was like? He mentioned that there was an entrance into hyperspace or a hyperspatial breakthrough by a hyperdimensional object. Recently, a friend of mine mentioned the novelty theory and I wanted to know if somebody could tell me what the description of his hyperdimensional space was like.
This article desperately needs fact checking and slant-reverting by a knowledgeable math/sci editor. I am too busy myself, but I want to note that the present version is absurdly credulous. This "theory" would not be regarded as anything but sheer nonsense by mainstream scientists. --- CH 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia [ [1] external links guidelines]:
"Links normally to be avoided
...
Links mainly intended to promote a website ...
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
...
Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."
The linked to page is a purchase page for selling of the software and the site restricts access to relevant content. The link is therefore in violation of wikipedia guidelines and should be removed from the external links section. 66.42.71.57 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Another wikipedia guideline is: "...avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website". This [ [2]] series of edits added three links to the same commercial software site. 66.42.71.106 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be so much better if the formula(s) that give rise to the timewave were stated explicitly instead of being referred to in abstract, indirect wording. Also, I feel that removing much of the reported opinion would improve the article. Axel 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This article really needs some serious work. WP:FRINGE says that we should represent the mainstream science view as truth and fringe theories should not be given undue weight. Anything that cannot be supported by peer-reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals needs to be labelled as "claims" from such-and-such author and not presented as "Truth". The opening sentence (at least) needs to state that this is not mainstream science. After that, we have to clarify or expand on what is being said because the language in this article is more or less just random scientific terms strung together without meaning.
SteveBaker ( talk) 14:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
shouldn't all info at least be shown a little light, so some might not think this is truth, or want to peer review this theory. dose that mean it HAS to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.123.144 ( talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose moving Novelty theory to Timewave zero, which is currently a redirect to Novelty theory. The reason for this is that "Timewave zero" is a much more common name for this stuff than "Novelty theory", and is somewhat more common than Time wave zero. Additionally, the term "novelty theory" is more commonly used to refer to one or more social science theories than it is to refer to the subject of this article; that would not a problem with the name "Timewave zero". Cardamon ( talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
According to page history, it has not been edited in November or October 2008. Yet, it accurately predicts November 2008 as the next peak of "novelty" after 9/11. The recent terror attack in India was called by the media "Indian 9/11", due to severity and complexity of the attack. Now i know it's probably a coincidence... but not a trivial one. Please, do not delete this article, it will be very interesting to observe it in October 2010. 79.179.126.254 ( talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
October/November of '08 is also the Crash of '08 in stock & bond markets. As prophecy is generally non-specific and can be applied to essentially any event if you interpret them correctly, this does have a certain 'spookiness' to it that warrants hanging onto the 3k of data. Just my 2c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.185.42 ( talk) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Also the election of Barack Obama took place in November 2008. Certainly a time of great change... but isn't this true of all modern times? Please keep this article anyway. I love referencing Wikipedia for alternative theories because elsewhere on the internet it's tough to find anyone who even tries to correct their own bias... 96.231.193.141 ( talk) 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
once I was looking at a pretty zoomed-in timewave and could relate most of the peaks to events in my life. placebo effect? it could have been. but i guess only time will tell. this difficulty in objectively differentiating a "novel" event to one that is not is what made one website delete its thorough page on the theory to replace it with a caption "thus it is to be considered pseudoscience [as what may be novel to some may not be to others]." Twipley ( talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You made that program on the screenshot in QBasic, am I right? This is ridiculous!!! 92.52.193.197 ( talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timewave_9_11_2001.png screenshot shows peaks around 09/01, 10/08, and 09/10, but aren't peaks pointing to periods of low novelty? i thought that the depressions pointed to novelty, that is, more novelty the nearer the curve is to a null value (that is, 0.0000000). Twipley ( talk) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been using the Timewave Calculator program at the Timewave2012 website ( http://frequency23.net/timewave/index.php?option=com_agora&action=search&task=search&keywords=graph+meaning&author=&forum=-1&sort_by=5&sort_dir=DESC&show_as=topics&search=Submit) This calculator creates Novelty Values and the Graph that displays them over time. I have the same dilemma: The graph shows novelty values which approach zero as they approach the baseline. At 12/21/2012 the novelty value becomes zero. This can only mean (at least to me) that novelty ends in 2012; not that it becomes infinite. Bmansurchit ( talk) 06:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
i may be wrong, but i always have viewed this theory as novelty to "become infinite" in 2012. Twipley ( talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
edit: here's some page i've just found (which i'll later read): http://www.hermetic.ch/frt/doc/overview.html Twipley ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The ET talk by the astronaut happened on the 20th of April. I'm not sure whether that should be taken as any kind of confirmation, but then again I don't think the dating on the theory is supposed to be exact. It's also not the first time this astronaut has made that claim before the media.
I'm sure there was SOMETHING happening somewhere on pretty much all of the past significant dates...how do we know what's a possible confirmation and what can be attributed to the fact something interesting happens every single day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.244.123 ( talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The pandemic flu started as of around 26th April, a quite striking novelty event for the world. Surely it's not the 5 days that would matter, since 9/11, the November 2008 was also the month with greatest novelty ever since (as predicted by the timewave). This seems to be interesting in showing that the theory can predict novelty. By showing significant world-impacting events to occur around these dates, this meets the verificability criteria of Wiki's standards. Please, keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.57.124 ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section has clearly been rewritten by someone with a pro-Timewave bias. Much of the criticisms are answered and ridiculed without being allowed to develop, and some are even put in sarcastic quotation marks. It should either be removed or redrafted from scratch, and both sides should be cited. I'm pretty sure some sound scientific criticisms can be found for this hypothesis. Serendi pod ous 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's not going to be deleted or merged, then what is going to happen to it? Because it can't exist as it is; it is in blatant violation of about fifteen different Wikipedia rules. It is effectively someone's personal promotional essay on Timewave, not an encyclopedia article on timewave. Since I know nothing about Timewave, I don't think I can redraft it. But someone has to. Serendi pod ous 15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR. Use that as long as you are making improvements.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is a mess and most of its material is either uncited or brazenly opinionated. It has already been nominated for deletion twice, and probably would be best served to be trimmed down to its barest essentials and merged with the 2012 doomsday prediction article. Serendi pod ous 12:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I still think Timewave zero would best work as part of this article. With the unsourced "Software history" section taken out, it would easily fit into a subsection, and, as it is is a major theme in the 2012 doomsday prediction, it should be alongside the galactic alignment or new age ideas. Serendi pod ous 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree to yes, add introduce more citations into the article. I don't think because it is a controversial fringe theory, that it should be removed, no. There are many articles in Wikipedia about fringe themes, like futurology, future trends, trends, the technology singularity... Furthermore, Timewave was part of a research, has citations to its original and following studies, and meets the verificability criteria by predicting specific novelty dates that can later be confirmed or not. I don't think it should go to Doomsday theories, this is a mathematical theory of time and novelty, not a doom prediction. However it is just a mathematical theory.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.47.57.124 (
talk)
21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Merging Timewave zero with 2012 doomsday prediction implies reducing the size of the article to a few words and is tantamount to deleting it. This article has been nominated for deletion twice, and both times the verdict was "Keep." Systemizer ( talk) 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've removed the most troubling sections. At least now the article makes some kind of sense. I know that what I did may cause some concern but the sections I removed were too full of opinion and original research to stand, particularly since this page involves living persons. This article, as it stands, needs work, but it isn't scaring me anyomre.
Serendi
pod
ous
20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
...I'm really sorry if that came off as offensive. I didn't mean it to be that way. If you could help with the sources, that would be really great! <font-c=D2691E> Chocolate <font-c=9966CC>Panic! —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
There is no consensus for the deletion of the
Timewave zero article and its replacement with a paragraph only in
2012 doomsday prediction with the loss of background and detail that that entails. If you want to proceed I suggest you (
User:Serendipodous )start a RFD for Timewave zero.
Lumos3 (
talk)
14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The misconceived AfD has been closed, but the merge issue still stands. I will keep this discussion open for a few more days and, unless significant objections emerge, I will merge it. Serendi pod ous 09:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop merging you promised a few days dabate yesterday. Lumos3 ( talk) 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to propose a merger again now that the AFD is out of the way then go about it the proper way. Put merge tags on both articles and have a section headed merger so that editors can see whats going on and add their comments under that section. What you are doing is hiding a merger discussion within a misleading topic heading. This wont attract the attention of interested editors Lumos3 ( talk) 11:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now restarted this entire debate just for you. But I don't know why, since I don't think you would accept any result that didn't conform exactly to what you wanted. Serendi pod ous 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Serendipodous has reopened a merger proposition with 2012 doomsday prediction now that the Afd has failed. This requires a new set of voting since the discussion above was confused and ended with a withdrawal of the merger proposal in May. The article has moved on since that time. Lumos3 ( talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC) See the diff between the 22 May and today [6] Lumos3 ( talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
I agree with Lumos- though I have not much to offer in terms of new input affecting the merger proposal, I felt it was important to second Lumos's point and quantify the support for this article a bit. Timewave, as a topic, surely makes references to 12/21/2012, however this is only a small part of the concept, and suggesting this article be placed within the 2012 thread is as logical as suggesting all materials addressing Mayans be similarly consolidated to 2012. Moreover, timewave is not a pop-culture ethos or poorly considered theory, it is a abstract conceptualization of history using mathematics to illustrate cyclical patterns. I say this not to denigrate the 2012 theory, but to draw a contrast- one is a loosely created cultural idea, the other an application of math and science to observe something thought to be unmeasurable. Whether you agree with the results is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.49.34 ( talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This merger was not closed. It is still ongoing. Lumos does not want the article merged, and is throwing as many obstacles in the way of that happening as he can. The AfD was not closed because the article was notable. It was closed because the attempt was to merge the article, not delete it, and mergers are not covered in AfD. Serendi pod ous 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Support
To make sense this article needs to attribute everything it says. It must not speak of this theory as if it is an absolute truth, but everything must be in the words of either its author, later contributors and its critics. Wherever possible attributions and sources must be stated. Systemizer you are using a tone of voice more approriate to a religious text or mathematics. Lumos3 ( talk) 22:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Systemizer keeps removing this item from the description of the Timewave, last time with the comment -" It is not a definition of the term "novelty." And this article is not a collection of miscellaneous quotations)" . On the contrary McKenna saw the tension between novelty and habit as a central part of his idea.
In support I offer this quote from Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality, By John Horgan, Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004, ISBN 061844663X, Page 186 [7] -
When I told McKenna that I wasn't sure how his timewave theory worked, he launched into an explication of it. The essence of the theory is that existance emerges from the clash of two forces, not good and evil but habit and novelty. Habit is entropic, repititious, conservative; novelty is creative , disjunctive, progressive. "In all processes at any scale , you can see these two forces grinding against each other . You can also see that novelty is winning."
Lumos3 ( talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
"novelty is creative , disjunctive"
According to both Whitehead and McKenna, novelty is not disjunctive. On the contrary, it is conjunctive. This example shows that the journalist who has written the book you were going to quote HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. The same applies to you.--
Systemizer (
talk)
16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This article makes no sense at all to the lay reader. What exactly is being described here? Hipocrite ( talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has been RAPED of any meaningful information which would actually allow a readaer to have any clue as to just what it was that mckenna came up with 9or thought he came up with)...whether you agree with him or not. You have to go back to my March 2009 revision to find that yes, actual mathmaticians and a physicist studied the very complex math involved. And YES there is actually a complex mathmatical formula which has been published. I provided references for all of this. However, all mention of the publication of the funderlying mathmatical theory and the critique and scientific evaluation of that theory, as well as the punlished core tenants of Mckenna's idea, has been replaced by 'numerology associated with magic' and other pointless crap without any references whatsoever. who this serves and to what end, escapes me. I don't care whether the underlying hypothesis is flawed, stupid, satanic or brillinat. Without actually posting the information McKenna proposed as the basis of novelty theory..the math..., the scientific review of that math and McKennas interprative application fo the formula, there is no reason for this page to exist any longer. GGS ( talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:PSTS states that secondary sources often "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", and that it is these sources that a wikipedia article should primarily rely upon. This seems to be exactly what is lacking from this article. What reliably-sourced evaluations do we have of this topic? All that I can see is McKenna's own claims & credulous (and often questionably-sourced) regurgitations of them. This really isn't acceptable, particularly on a topic that is way on the outer WP:FRINGE -- to the extent that the phrase "not even wrong" would appear to apply (in that it is not even sufficiently mathematically/scientifically coherent to be disprovable). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Since Mckenna made no claim that his idea was scientific , how can it be described as pseudoscience. It is a metaphysical theory . Are we to label all of metaphysics as pseudo science? Lumos3 ( talk) 11:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole thing appears to be little more than a confusing word-salad of mathematical terms, without any real meaning. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any WP:CONSENSUS supporting Systemizer's favoured version?
Much of this article is biased... And, yes, you can go ahead a right this off.... It needs to be either redone or deleted. For one, this isn't pseudoscience, as it's never claimed to be... it's an expression of the right-brain; just as your science is strictly left-brained. Partial............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.71.204 ( talk) 05:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
User:99.25.150.125 made a recent edit to this page attempting to clarify the Summary section. As I noted to the complaint at the village pump, the edit seemed more suitable for a talk page. The edit is below. — Ost ( talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
According to me:
I hope this helps , jeff.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.150.125 ( talk) 05:56, 21 July 2009
The article makes the claim:
As the human civilisation approaches its absolute peak (Peak Everything), universal interconnectedness undergoes an exponential growth (see an example[12]), culminating in Nature's overt macroscopic nonlocality[13] reached by 21 December 2012.
This has a number of problems:
In other words, technologies seem to be converging toward opening up the Bell-nonlocal quantum realm, where, presumably, all the intelligences of the universe are communicating in some kind of standing wave form.
Both forms are of course meaningless pseudoscientific babble -- but they're not equivalent pseudoscientific babble (the only commonality would be that they both mention "nonlocality" in some form). It's bad enough when we have to deal with McKenna's own word-salads, I see no point in admitting made-up word salads into the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, could somebody tell me how you get:
The main attributes of the overt macroscopic nonlocality are psychokinesis…
…from…
When you travel in hyperspace, everything is interactive. The whole universe is as a person and we are relating or dancing with everything. The child says 'Mom, I danced with a rock'. The reply is 'Rocks don’t dance.' We know that everything dances. You poke it; it pokes back.
? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ditto…
A bound system has a lower potential energy than its constituent parts; that is why the universe is evolving toward infinite interconnectedness—nonlocality.
…from…
…you know the marble will roll down the side of the bowl—down, down, down—until eventually it comes to rest at the lowest energy state, which is the bottom of the bowl. That’s precisely my model of human history.
(or from anything else in the cited text)? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The primary attribute of a fractal is 'self-similarity' ("any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size" -- M-W). I cannot see any indication from the images in this article that the timewave is genuinely "fractal". Do we have a competent source (i.e. a mathetmatician) to attest to this description? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that this editor is blocked for a week for edit-warring. Dougweller ( talk) 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that this article meets WP:GNG pursuant to that interpretation I have proposed deletion. Terrance McKenna is not an expert on the nature of time nor does "timewave zero" have the qualities of a coherent metaphysical or philosophical position on the nature of time. What it does represent is a grab-bag of scientific sounding language devoid of real meaning. I don't see this as being something with any body of secondary sources referencing in a notable manner, the entire article is derived, it seems, from primary sources. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Which has a section on timewave zero.
Timewave zero has existed as an article since 2004. It has survived 4 attempts at AFD. Can it be within the spirit of Wikipedia to in effect delete the article by substituting it with a Redirect after only a brief discussion involving a few members on the discussion page without alerting the wider community to its impending removal through an AFD or Merge. Comments please. Lumos3 ( talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Off topic -- the question before this RfC is whether a WP:REDIRECT requires a WP:AFD, not the redirection of a specific article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why is this redirect tagged as a merger when there was no merger discussion and the article content has not been merged with the destination article? Lumos3 ( talk) 09:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Looking through the 7.1 software archive that 66.134.102.50 added a link to, I realize that I was the one that compiled it and wrote the readme. For the life of me I can't remember when, or how I released it. Or how I lost it. I'm interested to know how the person who put up the link came by it. Leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to let me know. — Clarknova 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From WP:VF
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
From WP:FT
Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.
This article needs cleanup and more sourcing. It is showing its age and has not been revised to meet Wikipedia's rising standards. That said, the proper response to Novelty Theory's crackpot character is to improve the article.
Nonimination for deletion is the lazy way out. It has now been nominated twice. The first vote failed and as of this post the second vote also has a (slim) majority in favor of keeping it. Both have failed.
Deleting articles and expunging records is not the way to advance a rational agenda. If you object to this article's material please improve the criticism section and reference your contributions properly. —
Clarknova (
talk)
20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought in order to be NPOV a lot needed to be said about his claims to Novelty Theory being a "mathematical theory", most mathematicians would disagree to that status. There is very little "mathematical " about it, it is much more numerlogical. Of course the article still needs to be NPOV and respect Mckennas's views but since it is a theory that, if even considered by the mathematical community at large, which it is not do to it's very numerological nature, would be a very controversial theory, and is usually rejected outright by those few mathematicians who have even considered it (it's hard to even find links to such criticisms made by trained mathematicians because it is so very rarely considered do to it's obvious numerologica nature.) It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal to the best of my knowledge (something to be expected considerig McKenna's rejection of the methods of what he called "Western" science--a disrespectful misnomer IMHO considering the many valuable contributions from the East.) I added some material about the controversial nature of the claim, I tried to be NPOV, as a matter of fact the effort was an attempt tp make the article more NPOV, and less lauditory, although fans of McKenna's work might disagree to the success of my NPOV eforts. If you change any of my additions please discuss it here first.
I suspect some might consider relegating all such criticism to the "criticism" section, but since the claims to it being a "mathematical" theory are so dubious I think its appropriate that the controversey of the claim be mentioned where the claim is first stated, especially since the claim is made right next to the very numerological sources. If you don't understand the difference between numerology and mathematics please refrain from attempting to contribute to this portion of the article, as little of use is likely to be added someone who does not know anything about the subject.
For the record I respect some of McKenna's efforts, namely his efforts to preserve plants used by indigenous cultures, I just think a lot of his theories were silly, a feeling which I tried to keep out of the article, only mentioning, in a attempt to make the article less POV, the very real controversy of his claimes to Novelty Theory being on a sound mathematical or scientific ground. -- Brentt 08:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Whats interesting to me is that the work of Dr. Ronald Mallett may fulfill the time travel prophecy by 2012, though i suspect Dr. Rons already got his time machine working. And wouldn't you say that the internet and Wikipedia also fulfill the consciousness shift criteria?
Terrence McKenna is not known to have ever issued such a statement. Indeed, in his published books, interviews, and recorded lectures McKenna consistently treats the theory as seriously as any of his other material.
I've listened to all his lectures I could get my hands on, and have never had the feeling of him treating the thing as a scientific theory. I even read the Invisible Landscape and it is described in an introduction - justifiably so I believe - as akin to a dense alchemical grimoire - that was also my feel for the book - using all theories at their disposal to attempt to explain something unexplainable, incoherent and passionate, but certanly not scientific. True, he did say it was a theory of mathematics, and that is totaly false. Actual factography was never his strong point :), and if confronted with the fact that it isn't math, I think he would have no problems retracting such a statement. He created the wave using just the basic mathematics, and some geometric intuitions, so I think that by seing a mathematical theory he meant only in the sense of dealing with numbers. I dont have the quotes to demonstrate this feeling, will look for them. I dont think he would call the thing a parody - I think he liked it (and how wouldn't he, since it came to him in such a drastic trip?), but was himself split about believing or not in it. But when presenting it, he allways called for people to test it by comparing the predictions of it with their own sense of the important events in history (supposedly he verified the Mayan end date by looking at the italian rennaisance) - thats more akin to other divination methods than science. Also I think he refered to it as his pet theory, and as some freakish object, etc. I see that there is a link in the pseudoscience to novelty theory - and again, he made no claims about it being scientific (I mean it was more like a channeled idea in a trip, totaly irational, antithetical to science), and that was a criterium of what constitues a pseudoscience in the beggining of that article. Just because something appears to one in a trip doesn't make the person that tripped it believe that its necessarely true - though it usualy makes one fond of the idea - for instance a guy in a trip saw an insectoid creature that explained that it is a mental parasite, living of the strength of emotion of the hosts - and he discusses the problem of the reality of such experiences, and is not ready to either believe or dismiss the experience. I think thats the logical adaptive attitude people take towards things they encounter on their trips, especially if tripping so intensly as McKenna, and believe that McKenna shared that aditute. He talked about pearing over the abyss and pulling something out of it - timewave zero was such an irrational object.
-aryah
I have a copy of Timewave Zero 4.3. Is there really a Fractal Time 7.1? I cannot find it. -- Ajay5150
~~GS~~
Can anybody provide me with a link or tell me what McKenna's description of hyperspace was like? He mentioned that there was an entrance into hyperspace or a hyperspatial breakthrough by a hyperdimensional object. Recently, a friend of mine mentioned the novelty theory and I wanted to know if somebody could tell me what the description of his hyperdimensional space was like.
This article desperately needs fact checking and slant-reverting by a knowledgeable math/sci editor. I am too busy myself, but I want to note that the present version is absurdly credulous. This "theory" would not be regarded as anything but sheer nonsense by mainstream scientists. --- CH 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia [ [1] external links guidelines]:
"Links normally to be avoided
...
Links mainly intended to promote a website ...
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
...
Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."
The linked to page is a purchase page for selling of the software and the site restricts access to relevant content. The link is therefore in violation of wikipedia guidelines and should be removed from the external links section. 66.42.71.57 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Another wikipedia guideline is: "...avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website". This [ [2]] series of edits added three links to the same commercial software site. 66.42.71.106 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be so much better if the formula(s) that give rise to the timewave were stated explicitly instead of being referred to in abstract, indirect wording. Also, I feel that removing much of the reported opinion would improve the article. Axel 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This article really needs some serious work. WP:FRINGE says that we should represent the mainstream science view as truth and fringe theories should not be given undue weight. Anything that cannot be supported by peer-reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals needs to be labelled as "claims" from such-and-such author and not presented as "Truth". The opening sentence (at least) needs to state that this is not mainstream science. After that, we have to clarify or expand on what is being said because the language in this article is more or less just random scientific terms strung together without meaning.
SteveBaker ( talk) 14:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
shouldn't all info at least be shown a little light, so some might not think this is truth, or want to peer review this theory. dose that mean it HAS to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.123.144 ( talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose moving Novelty theory to Timewave zero, which is currently a redirect to Novelty theory. The reason for this is that "Timewave zero" is a much more common name for this stuff than "Novelty theory", and is somewhat more common than Time wave zero. Additionally, the term "novelty theory" is more commonly used to refer to one or more social science theories than it is to refer to the subject of this article; that would not a problem with the name "Timewave zero". Cardamon ( talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
According to page history, it has not been edited in November or October 2008. Yet, it accurately predicts November 2008 as the next peak of "novelty" after 9/11. The recent terror attack in India was called by the media "Indian 9/11", due to severity and complexity of the attack. Now i know it's probably a coincidence... but not a trivial one. Please, do not delete this article, it will be very interesting to observe it in October 2010. 79.179.126.254 ( talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
October/November of '08 is also the Crash of '08 in stock & bond markets. As prophecy is generally non-specific and can be applied to essentially any event if you interpret them correctly, this does have a certain 'spookiness' to it that warrants hanging onto the 3k of data. Just my 2c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.185.42 ( talk) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Also the election of Barack Obama took place in November 2008. Certainly a time of great change... but isn't this true of all modern times? Please keep this article anyway. I love referencing Wikipedia for alternative theories because elsewhere on the internet it's tough to find anyone who even tries to correct their own bias... 96.231.193.141 ( talk) 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
once I was looking at a pretty zoomed-in timewave and could relate most of the peaks to events in my life. placebo effect? it could have been. but i guess only time will tell. this difficulty in objectively differentiating a "novel" event to one that is not is what made one website delete its thorough page on the theory to replace it with a caption "thus it is to be considered pseudoscience [as what may be novel to some may not be to others]." Twipley ( talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You made that program on the screenshot in QBasic, am I right? This is ridiculous!!! 92.52.193.197 ( talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timewave_9_11_2001.png screenshot shows peaks around 09/01, 10/08, and 09/10, but aren't peaks pointing to periods of low novelty? i thought that the depressions pointed to novelty, that is, more novelty the nearer the curve is to a null value (that is, 0.0000000). Twipley ( talk) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been using the Timewave Calculator program at the Timewave2012 website ( http://frequency23.net/timewave/index.php?option=com_agora&action=search&task=search&keywords=graph+meaning&author=&forum=-1&sort_by=5&sort_dir=DESC&show_as=topics&search=Submit) This calculator creates Novelty Values and the Graph that displays them over time. I have the same dilemma: The graph shows novelty values which approach zero as they approach the baseline. At 12/21/2012 the novelty value becomes zero. This can only mean (at least to me) that novelty ends in 2012; not that it becomes infinite. Bmansurchit ( talk) 06:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
i may be wrong, but i always have viewed this theory as novelty to "become infinite" in 2012. Twipley ( talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
edit: here's some page i've just found (which i'll later read): http://www.hermetic.ch/frt/doc/overview.html Twipley ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The ET talk by the astronaut happened on the 20th of April. I'm not sure whether that should be taken as any kind of confirmation, but then again I don't think the dating on the theory is supposed to be exact. It's also not the first time this astronaut has made that claim before the media.
I'm sure there was SOMETHING happening somewhere on pretty much all of the past significant dates...how do we know what's a possible confirmation and what can be attributed to the fact something interesting happens every single day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.244.123 ( talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The pandemic flu started as of around 26th April, a quite striking novelty event for the world. Surely it's not the 5 days that would matter, since 9/11, the November 2008 was also the month with greatest novelty ever since (as predicted by the timewave). This seems to be interesting in showing that the theory can predict novelty. By showing significant world-impacting events to occur around these dates, this meets the verificability criteria of Wiki's standards. Please, keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.57.124 ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section has clearly been rewritten by someone with a pro-Timewave bias. Much of the criticisms are answered and ridiculed without being allowed to develop, and some are even put in sarcastic quotation marks. It should either be removed or redrafted from scratch, and both sides should be cited. I'm pretty sure some sound scientific criticisms can be found for this hypothesis. Serendi pod ous 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's not going to be deleted or merged, then what is going to happen to it? Because it can't exist as it is; it is in blatant violation of about fifteen different Wikipedia rules. It is effectively someone's personal promotional essay on Timewave, not an encyclopedia article on timewave. Since I know nothing about Timewave, I don't think I can redraft it. But someone has to. Serendi pod ous 15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR. Use that as long as you are making improvements.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is a mess and most of its material is either uncited or brazenly opinionated. It has already been nominated for deletion twice, and probably would be best served to be trimmed down to its barest essentials and merged with the 2012 doomsday prediction article. Serendi pod ous 12:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I still think Timewave zero would best work as part of this article. With the unsourced "Software history" section taken out, it would easily fit into a subsection, and, as it is is a major theme in the 2012 doomsday prediction, it should be alongside the galactic alignment or new age ideas. Serendi pod ous 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree to yes, add introduce more citations into the article. I don't think because it is a controversial fringe theory, that it should be removed, no. There are many articles in Wikipedia about fringe themes, like futurology, future trends, trends, the technology singularity... Furthermore, Timewave was part of a research, has citations to its original and following studies, and meets the verificability criteria by predicting specific novelty dates that can later be confirmed or not. I don't think it should go to Doomsday theories, this is a mathematical theory of time and novelty, not a doom prediction. However it is just a mathematical theory.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.47.57.124 (
talk)
21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Merging Timewave zero with 2012 doomsday prediction implies reducing the size of the article to a few words and is tantamount to deleting it. This article has been nominated for deletion twice, and both times the verdict was "Keep." Systemizer ( talk) 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've removed the most troubling sections. At least now the article makes some kind of sense. I know that what I did may cause some concern but the sections I removed were too full of opinion and original research to stand, particularly since this page involves living persons. This article, as it stands, needs work, but it isn't scaring me anyomre.
Serendi
pod
ous
20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
...I'm really sorry if that came off as offensive. I didn't mean it to be that way. If you could help with the sources, that would be really great! <font-c=D2691E> Chocolate <font-c=9966CC>Panic! —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
There is no consensus for the deletion of the
Timewave zero article and its replacement with a paragraph only in
2012 doomsday prediction with the loss of background and detail that that entails. If you want to proceed I suggest you (
User:Serendipodous )start a RFD for Timewave zero.
Lumos3 (
talk)
14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The misconceived AfD has been closed, but the merge issue still stands. I will keep this discussion open for a few more days and, unless significant objections emerge, I will merge it. Serendi pod ous 09:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop merging you promised a few days dabate yesterday. Lumos3 ( talk) 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to propose a merger again now that the AFD is out of the way then go about it the proper way. Put merge tags on both articles and have a section headed merger so that editors can see whats going on and add their comments under that section. What you are doing is hiding a merger discussion within a misleading topic heading. This wont attract the attention of interested editors Lumos3 ( talk) 11:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now restarted this entire debate just for you. But I don't know why, since I don't think you would accept any result that didn't conform exactly to what you wanted. Serendi pod ous 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Serendipodous has reopened a merger proposition with 2012 doomsday prediction now that the Afd has failed. This requires a new set of voting since the discussion above was confused and ended with a withdrawal of the merger proposal in May. The article has moved on since that time. Lumos3 ( talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC) See the diff between the 22 May and today [6] Lumos3 ( talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
I agree with Lumos- though I have not much to offer in terms of new input affecting the merger proposal, I felt it was important to second Lumos's point and quantify the support for this article a bit. Timewave, as a topic, surely makes references to 12/21/2012, however this is only a small part of the concept, and suggesting this article be placed within the 2012 thread is as logical as suggesting all materials addressing Mayans be similarly consolidated to 2012. Moreover, timewave is not a pop-culture ethos or poorly considered theory, it is a abstract conceptualization of history using mathematics to illustrate cyclical patterns. I say this not to denigrate the 2012 theory, but to draw a contrast- one is a loosely created cultural idea, the other an application of math and science to observe something thought to be unmeasurable. Whether you agree with the results is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.49.34 ( talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This merger was not closed. It is still ongoing. Lumos does not want the article merged, and is throwing as many obstacles in the way of that happening as he can. The AfD was not closed because the article was notable. It was closed because the attempt was to merge the article, not delete it, and mergers are not covered in AfD. Serendi pod ous 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Support
To make sense this article needs to attribute everything it says. It must not speak of this theory as if it is an absolute truth, but everything must be in the words of either its author, later contributors and its critics. Wherever possible attributions and sources must be stated. Systemizer you are using a tone of voice more approriate to a religious text or mathematics. Lumos3 ( talk) 22:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Systemizer keeps removing this item from the description of the Timewave, last time with the comment -" It is not a definition of the term "novelty." And this article is not a collection of miscellaneous quotations)" . On the contrary McKenna saw the tension between novelty and habit as a central part of his idea.
In support I offer this quote from Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality, By John Horgan, Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004, ISBN 061844663X, Page 186 [7] -
When I told McKenna that I wasn't sure how his timewave theory worked, he launched into an explication of it. The essence of the theory is that existance emerges from the clash of two forces, not good and evil but habit and novelty. Habit is entropic, repititious, conservative; novelty is creative , disjunctive, progressive. "In all processes at any scale , you can see these two forces grinding against each other . You can also see that novelty is winning."
Lumos3 ( talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
"novelty is creative , disjunctive"
According to both Whitehead and McKenna, novelty is not disjunctive. On the contrary, it is conjunctive. This example shows that the journalist who has written the book you were going to quote HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. The same applies to you.--
Systemizer (
talk)
16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This article makes no sense at all to the lay reader. What exactly is being described here? Hipocrite ( talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has been RAPED of any meaningful information which would actually allow a readaer to have any clue as to just what it was that mckenna came up with 9or thought he came up with)...whether you agree with him or not. You have to go back to my March 2009 revision to find that yes, actual mathmaticians and a physicist studied the very complex math involved. And YES there is actually a complex mathmatical formula which has been published. I provided references for all of this. However, all mention of the publication of the funderlying mathmatical theory and the critique and scientific evaluation of that theory, as well as the punlished core tenants of Mckenna's idea, has been replaced by 'numerology associated with magic' and other pointless crap without any references whatsoever. who this serves and to what end, escapes me. I don't care whether the underlying hypothesis is flawed, stupid, satanic or brillinat. Without actually posting the information McKenna proposed as the basis of novelty theory..the math..., the scientific review of that math and McKennas interprative application fo the formula, there is no reason for this page to exist any longer. GGS ( talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:PSTS states that secondary sources often "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", and that it is these sources that a wikipedia article should primarily rely upon. This seems to be exactly what is lacking from this article. What reliably-sourced evaluations do we have of this topic? All that I can see is McKenna's own claims & credulous (and often questionably-sourced) regurgitations of them. This really isn't acceptable, particularly on a topic that is way on the outer WP:FRINGE -- to the extent that the phrase "not even wrong" would appear to apply (in that it is not even sufficiently mathematically/scientifically coherent to be disprovable). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Since Mckenna made no claim that his idea was scientific , how can it be described as pseudoscience. It is a metaphysical theory . Are we to label all of metaphysics as pseudo science? Lumos3 ( talk) 11:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole thing appears to be little more than a confusing word-salad of mathematical terms, without any real meaning. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any WP:CONSENSUS supporting Systemizer's favoured version?
Much of this article is biased... And, yes, you can go ahead a right this off.... It needs to be either redone or deleted. For one, this isn't pseudoscience, as it's never claimed to be... it's an expression of the right-brain; just as your science is strictly left-brained. Partial............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.71.204 ( talk) 05:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
User:99.25.150.125 made a recent edit to this page attempting to clarify the Summary section. As I noted to the complaint at the village pump, the edit seemed more suitable for a talk page. The edit is below. — Ost ( talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
According to me:
I hope this helps , jeff.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.150.125 ( talk) 05:56, 21 July 2009
The article makes the claim:
As the human civilisation approaches its absolute peak (Peak Everything), universal interconnectedness undergoes an exponential growth (see an example[12]), culminating in Nature's overt macroscopic nonlocality[13] reached by 21 December 2012.
This has a number of problems:
In other words, technologies seem to be converging toward opening up the Bell-nonlocal quantum realm, where, presumably, all the intelligences of the universe are communicating in some kind of standing wave form.
Both forms are of course meaningless pseudoscientific babble -- but they're not equivalent pseudoscientific babble (the only commonality would be that they both mention "nonlocality" in some form). It's bad enough when we have to deal with McKenna's own word-salads, I see no point in admitting made-up word salads into the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, could somebody tell me how you get:
The main attributes of the overt macroscopic nonlocality are psychokinesis…
…from…
When you travel in hyperspace, everything is interactive. The whole universe is as a person and we are relating or dancing with everything. The child says 'Mom, I danced with a rock'. The reply is 'Rocks don’t dance.' We know that everything dances. You poke it; it pokes back.
? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ditto…
A bound system has a lower potential energy than its constituent parts; that is why the universe is evolving toward infinite interconnectedness—nonlocality.
…from…
…you know the marble will roll down the side of the bowl—down, down, down—until eventually it comes to rest at the lowest energy state, which is the bottom of the bowl. That’s precisely my model of human history.
(or from anything else in the cited text)? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The primary attribute of a fractal is 'self-similarity' ("any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size" -- M-W). I cannot see any indication from the images in this article that the timewave is genuinely "fractal". Do we have a competent source (i.e. a mathetmatician) to attest to this description? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that this editor is blocked for a week for edit-warring. Dougweller ( talk) 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that this article meets WP:GNG pursuant to that interpretation I have proposed deletion. Terrance McKenna is not an expert on the nature of time nor does "timewave zero" have the qualities of a coherent metaphysical or philosophical position on the nature of time. What it does represent is a grab-bag of scientific sounding language devoid of real meaning. I don't see this as being something with any body of secondary sources referencing in a notable manner, the entire article is derived, it seems, from primary sources. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Which has a section on timewave zero.
Timewave zero has existed as an article since 2004. It has survived 4 attempts at AFD. Can it be within the spirit of Wikipedia to in effect delete the article by substituting it with a Redirect after only a brief discussion involving a few members on the discussion page without alerting the wider community to its impending removal through an AFD or Merge. Comments please. Lumos3 ( talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Off topic -- the question before this RfC is whether a WP:REDIRECT requires a WP:AFD, not the redirection of a specific article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why is this redirect tagged as a merger when there was no merger discussion and the article content has not been merged with the destination article? Lumos3 ( talk) 09:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)