Talk:2011 end times prediction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Congratulations[edit]

Folks, with all the passion here, we've pulled through an article that has been viewed more than 2 million times in the past month, with 2/3s of that being in the course of four days. It has seen a metric gajillion of edits, and while there certainly has been disagreement over what has been stressed and lots of fine-tuning, it's been kept largely coherent and worthwhile.

This is, of course, not the end of it all; we can expect to see coverage of the fallout for a while to come, with I expect some sociological research into the causes and effects of the whole hoopla. And we are likely to see some more hoo-ha around October 21 (although I expect it to be less.) The article itself is likely to need changing as this fits into history... I'm thinking we should eventually rearrange it so that the discussion of the impact moves higher up and the details of the formulation move to a lower spot in the article, particularly if there is good sociological science to cite. But that's all longer term; we've clearly pulled through the shorter term. Good work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So said Captain Obvious. - Another n00b (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, Nat. It's been a fun ride trying to stay on top of this bucking bronco - by far the most-watched article I have ever worked on. I don't know why User:Another n00b felt the need to post a sarcastic response, but personally I think we have done Wikipedia proud, keeping this article encyclopedic through all the hysteria. (The semiprotection during the peak period helped a lot too.) It will be interesting to see what kind of analysis is produced after the dust settles - and by whom. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% agreement! I only wish other pages on similarly fringe ideas were as well managed as this page. I'm arriving late in the game here, but it's obvious to me that many editors did fantastic work on this article to keep it neutral and encyclopedic. Many thanks to you all! Dcs002 (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed an absolute marvelous work by the editors who managed the frenzy. It was phenomenal. Another great chapter in Wikipedia history Anu Raj (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Should have been deleted. How are pipe dreams and lies worth an article? The more popular and bigger the lie the more deserving it is? Check your moral compass. 79.223.154.236 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 79.223.154.236: Inclusion, in Wikipedia, of articles on subjects that are about pipe dreams and lies somehow implicates the need for Wikipedia editors to check their "moral compass"? Really? So, Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on (for example) Nazism, or any other such thing that was based on pipe dreams or lies, either, we are to suppose? Good grief. Famspear (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Suicides[edit]

Name of 2011 ratpure car[edit]

Needs correction--78.156.109.166 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment? I do not see any reference to a car in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011-ratpure-car.jpg (title must be corrected) --78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
What about the title needs to be corrected? The current title is "Vehicle in San Francisco proclaiming the Harold Camping prediction."; that appears to correctly reflect the information at the file. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that he wants the spelling error in the title of the file changed. But personally I don't see the need because it's not shown in the article to be spelt incorrectly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
OIC. As you say, it's not a problem at this article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I don't think we can change the title here without breaking the link to the file. The misspelling was put into the file by the person who originally took the photo. Let's just pretend we didn't notice! --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting the title in the lede[edit]

An editor recently edited the opening sentence for smoothness, eliminating the phrase "2011 end times prediction" and had that work undone, by an editor who admitted that the version with the phrase is awkward. Restoring the phrase, while understandable, does not fit with MOS:BOLDTITLE, because the title used a name we invented for the article, not a common term for the prediction, and because working the phrase into the opening does make it awkward (as well as making it look like we're trying to explain some common name for the item, which we are not.) I suggest we revert the restoration. Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 end times prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 end times prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)