Talk:Americathon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:46, 21 January 2014

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Undid revision 506630421 by Daniel J. Leivick (talk)

Predictions Restored

An editor removed all of the predictions (1/3 of the article based on byte count) without discussion or debate. I think some of them are questionable but concensus should be sought before making such a significant change. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missed joke

Not that this section really belongs in the article, but whoever wrote:

Expensive specialty coffee becomes the norm (A panhandler asks for "$25 for a cup of coffee").

in as a prediction missed the point. First, the writer was clearly too young to remember what would have made that funny to the original audience: the double-digit inflation of the 1970s. Back then, it really did seem plausible that a cup of coffee would have been that much by 1998. And second, I really would quarrel with that idea. Expensive specialty coffee has vastly enlarged its market segment but it still hasn't become the norm (or else Dunkin' Donuts would be hurting and Starbucks doing well). Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change Needed

If I remember right, the United Kingdom was the 57th State of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Herring (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Elvis Costello sang, "Crawling to the USA" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.40.108 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "perdiction" come true error

The article has Peak Oil as a perdiction in the movie that has come true. This is at the very least in doubt. While Peak Oil may happen, it has yet to come true, or is in serious debate. This statement should be removed until at least the science proves that Peak Oil happened. Even the Wikipedia page on Peak Oil includes the doubts of this having happened. 68.55.6.178 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Predictions"

I've removed this section per WP:OR. Not only is it dubious, the movie is filled with predictions that failed to come true, but it is clearly original research. I can't imagine what kind of an argument could be used to support retaining such a section. --Daniel 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a movie after all, please leave the article alone. Many articles contain loads of unchallenged and blatant original commentary, so why pick on this flick. I find the observations interesting and they add to the interest of the topic in a positive manner. Unless off-base, prescient observations are welcome for creative works. 99.32.160.175 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:40, 25 November 2013 edit Fortdj33 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 416,709 edits Updated classification ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:46, 21 January 2014 edit undo 99.32.160.175 (talk) →‎"Predictions" Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:

	I've removed this section per [[WP:OR]]. Not only is it dubious, the movie is filled with predictions that failed to come true, but it is clearly original research. I can't imagine what kind of an argument could be used to support retaining such a section. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick\|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Daniel</span>]] 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)		I've removed this section per [[WP:OR]]. Not only is it dubious, the movie is filled with predictions that failed to come true, but it is clearly original research. I can't imagine what kind of an argument could be used to support retaining such a section. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick\|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Daniel</span>]] 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
			It's a movie after all, please leave the article alone. Many articles contain loads of unchallenged and blatant original commentary, so why pick on this flick. I find the observations interesting and they add to the interest of the topic in a positive manner. Unless off-base, prescient observations are welcome for creative works. [[Special:Contributions/99.32.160.175\|99.32.160.175]] ([[User talk:99.32.160.175\|talk]]) 04:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)