![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 October 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the near future redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Ex. "2034: James Bond comes into the public domain" A couple accounts simmilar to this - where are the references? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Prediction of legislative activity or inaction is folly. Nothing says that the length of copyright protection cannot be extended indefinitely or made retroactive. As it is, the term of expiration of copyright protection in the United States is 95 years, having been extended from 74 years in the 1990s. Thus "all compositions of George Gershwin enter the public domain in the USA in 2033" depends upon the assumption that the term of copyright protection remains as it is in early 2017. Pbrower2a ( talk) 12:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Although tastes in literature, painting, architecture, and musical composition can change over time, some tastes seem stable enough to merit recognition of the potential of exploiting the commemorations of creative people. Military reality can destroy empires; technological change can make certain forms of wealth irrelevant. Political entities? The standing of Abraham Lincoln obviously depends upon the survival of the United States of America. This explains why a " Lenin sesquicentennial", which would depend upon the survival of a political order that no longer exists is unlikely to happen even if as late as the early 1980 such seemed an inevitability to most people then living.
I had composers because I had seen much exploitation of centennials, sesquicentennials, bicentennials, and tricentennials of composers in the recording business. It is highly unlikely that knowledgeable people will lose their taste for Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Puccini, Bartók, or Stravinsky. Mozart is no fad; appreciation of the works of these composers is not tied to the survival of a political order. Literature? Are there any Latin authors who deserve the equivalent of a bi-millennium? Literature is closely linked to the culture around it, including language.
Franz Josef Haydn and George Washington were born in the same year. The renown of Haydn has outlasted that of the political order in which he lived (the Hapsburg monarchy); that of George Washington cannot outlast the United States of America should it disintegrate or be otherwise dissolved. Thus I would have a "Haydn tricentennial" (Haydn is arguably the most important composer ever because he created music to which practically everything subsequently written has an origin, but there is no trend to his composing styles) and not a "Washington tricentennial" on the list.
Half-millennium of Shakespeare... that might be the ticket. Pbrower2a ( talk) 12:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed claim that the One country, two systems policy will end in the 2040s because it had no source, and it is contradicted by the article itself, which states: "Hong Kong and Macau [...] can retain their established system under a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years after reunification. What will happen after 2047 (Hong Kong) and 2049 (Macau) has never been publicly stated." This entirely leaves open the possibility that the policy will be extended before its expiry dates, so keeping this claim here is clear original research. In my opinion, for this to remain on this page, sources must be provided that show that there is a consensus among experts that policies will not be extended. Trinitresque ( talk) 01:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that, in view of children of mixed origin that have very slight sub-Saharan, First Peoples (mostly from Latin America), or Asian ancestry that there will be redefinition that negates the one-drop rule for persons who look undeniably 'white'. One cannot predict a legal definition for more than the near future.
I don't believe any country anniversaries should be listed. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I have undone the mergers as no discussion appears to have been started regarding the matter. An RfC can always be started for additional input as the proposed changes are disputed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal | Pros | Cons | Impact |
---|---|---|---|
Create a "Timeline of the near future" for x years | • Combines all of the stub year articles • Creates a counter to Timeline of the far future |
• Breaks the consistency of by year articles • Is not as easily managed (long list). |
Depends on what years are included |
@ Beland:At this point I think it's fair to assume he's not coming back. Just go ahead and do it. Serendi pod ous 20:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it had been agreed that "the future" began in 2040. Given that it is already 2020, it seems a bit drastic to merge 2029 into this page. Serendi pod ous 14:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is how I would incorporate the material from Third millennium into this article. Serendi pod ous 15:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@ MB: What was the rationale for reverting the merge of 2030s into this article? There was no edit summary. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 22:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 October 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the near future redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Ex. "2034: James Bond comes into the public domain" A couple accounts simmilar to this - where are the references? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Prediction of legislative activity or inaction is folly. Nothing says that the length of copyright protection cannot be extended indefinitely or made retroactive. As it is, the term of expiration of copyright protection in the United States is 95 years, having been extended from 74 years in the 1990s. Thus "all compositions of George Gershwin enter the public domain in the USA in 2033" depends upon the assumption that the term of copyright protection remains as it is in early 2017. Pbrower2a ( talk) 12:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Although tastes in literature, painting, architecture, and musical composition can change over time, some tastes seem stable enough to merit recognition of the potential of exploiting the commemorations of creative people. Military reality can destroy empires; technological change can make certain forms of wealth irrelevant. Political entities? The standing of Abraham Lincoln obviously depends upon the survival of the United States of America. This explains why a " Lenin sesquicentennial", which would depend upon the survival of a political order that no longer exists is unlikely to happen even if as late as the early 1980 such seemed an inevitability to most people then living.
I had composers because I had seen much exploitation of centennials, sesquicentennials, bicentennials, and tricentennials of composers in the recording business. It is highly unlikely that knowledgeable people will lose their taste for Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Puccini, Bartók, or Stravinsky. Mozart is no fad; appreciation of the works of these composers is not tied to the survival of a political order. Literature? Are there any Latin authors who deserve the equivalent of a bi-millennium? Literature is closely linked to the culture around it, including language.
Franz Josef Haydn and George Washington were born in the same year. The renown of Haydn has outlasted that of the political order in which he lived (the Hapsburg monarchy); that of George Washington cannot outlast the United States of America should it disintegrate or be otherwise dissolved. Thus I would have a "Haydn tricentennial" (Haydn is arguably the most important composer ever because he created music to which practically everything subsequently written has an origin, but there is no trend to his composing styles) and not a "Washington tricentennial" on the list.
Half-millennium of Shakespeare... that might be the ticket. Pbrower2a ( talk) 12:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed claim that the One country, two systems policy will end in the 2040s because it had no source, and it is contradicted by the article itself, which states: "Hong Kong and Macau [...] can retain their established system under a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years after reunification. What will happen after 2047 (Hong Kong) and 2049 (Macau) has never been publicly stated." This entirely leaves open the possibility that the policy will be extended before its expiry dates, so keeping this claim here is clear original research. In my opinion, for this to remain on this page, sources must be provided that show that there is a consensus among experts that policies will not be extended. Trinitresque ( talk) 01:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that, in view of children of mixed origin that have very slight sub-Saharan, First Peoples (mostly from Latin America), or Asian ancestry that there will be redefinition that negates the one-drop rule for persons who look undeniably 'white'. One cannot predict a legal definition for more than the near future.
I don't believe any country anniversaries should be listed. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I have undone the mergers as no discussion appears to have been started regarding the matter. An RfC can always be started for additional input as the proposed changes are disputed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal | Pros | Cons | Impact |
---|---|---|---|
Create a "Timeline of the near future" for x years | • Combines all of the stub year articles • Creates a counter to Timeline of the far future |
• Breaks the consistency of by year articles • Is not as easily managed (long list). |
Depends on what years are included |
@ Beland:At this point I think it's fair to assume he's not coming back. Just go ahead and do it. Serendi pod ous 20:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it had been agreed that "the future" began in 2040. Given that it is already 2020, it seems a bit drastic to merge 2029 into this page. Serendi pod ous 14:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is how I would incorporate the material from Third millennium into this article. Serendi pod ous 15:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@ MB: What was the rationale for reverting the merge of 2030s into this article? There was no edit summary. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 22:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)