Talk:Doomsday event

message: Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of doomsday scenarios]]

message: This article is a duplicate of End of civilization. Forgetting the article titles, which are just idioms, the content of the articles is the same. -- Stbalbach 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they have evolved in that direction over time, as editors have copied material from one to the other.  Conceptually there is certainly significant overlap, but also a distinction to be made.  In my own edits to the Doomsday event article, I've tried to keep the focus on specific catastrophic <U>events</u>, while the End of civilization article, on the other hand, can encompass developments and scenarios so protracted that they would not reasonably qualify as <U>events</U>.  Gradual Societal collapse, for example, would entail the end of civilization but not a doomsday event.  - WikiPedant 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: End of Civilization is not related to Societal collapse - Societal collapse is about historical research into why and how past societies failed - it's serious scholarship based on historical research. End of Civilization and Doomsday event are future studies. Historians and futurists are like oil and water. Making a distinction between events that happen suddenly and events that take time is interesting, but not really a reason to create separate articles, the scholarship in this area is the same. The discussion is a trigger for catastrophic change. I think what has happened is someone created an idiom article title which is now being interpreted literally, creating an artificial split between these two articles over a fairly banal distinction that no one draws in the real world (look at any of the websites or books on these future studies, they make no such distinction). -- Stbalbach 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate articles? 

message: Intially listed alphabetically:
Subjectively sorted by conceptual hierarchy:
*Category:Eschatology
*Category:Futurology
*Eschatology (links to End of the world)
**Apocalypse
**Apocalypticism
**Armageddon
*End of the world (a dab page linking to the following articles:)
**Ultimate fate of the universe
***See also links:
***Doomsday event
**End of planet Earth
***See also:
***End of the world (closes a link loop)
***Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
**Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth (aka End of Civilization)
***Links in intro section:
***End of the world
***Doomsday (a dab page linking to the following articles:)
****Eschatology
****Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
****Doomsday Clock
****Doomsday event
****Doomsday device
****Doomsday argument
***TEOTWAWKI
***Futurology, Futures studies, Futurists
**Eschatology and End times
**End of the world (philosophy)
**Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction
Unsorted:
*Existential risk
*Human extinction
*Mutually assured destruction
*Technological singularity
Are there any fields of science that would be appropriate, either for this article, or others? IMO, eschatology, when viewed as a philosophical concept, precedes both scientific and religious investigations, while futurology is the more specific, purely scientific avenue of inquisitions. If a line needs to be drawn between mythos building and deductive research, this seems like a good one, but is possibly WP:OR. 
In any case, I started this talk section to collect links to the variously related articles, and assess them in some kind of preliminary manner. Feel free to edit/add/whatever to the above list. Xaxafrad 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should avoid the clearly religious articles. -- Stbalbach 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course. My reason for putting them there was for illustrative purposes: definition by distinction. Wait until they're rearranged by depth/topic. ;) (I'm not sure the list is comprehensive) Xaxafrad 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister topics 

message: I think this article is redundant. All it does is to list some cheesy sci-fi scenarios. 91.66.153.52 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, everything in the "Natural" list is possible, although some are more likely than others. Admittedly, the rapture is fictional, but most of the artificial are possible if not very likely. Just because Sci Fi used things doesn't make them less likely. 82.21.111.208 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant article? 

message: Is there any way we could permaban "Zombie" and variations (undead, etc) just for this article. I hate my RC feed when I see this page, and sometimes ignore thinking some other editor will take care of it, only to have the info remain there for a day or two. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I frickin' agree!!!  This article has already been flagged for "tone", and to see this Zombie looniness keep on popping up is pretty paethetic! BobbieCharlton (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree also. The cited references are reliable sources about what would happen if a zombie apocalypse occurred, but do not state this is a realistic possibility, which is what we care about on this page. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be completely missing something then. When a government agency like the CDC takes the time to create a 'Zombie Apocalypse' preparedness plan, that certainly grants it merit. When universities and government agencies take it upon themselves to plan for and study the mathematical vectors behind a zombie apocalypse, it must certainly be taken into account. Reliable sources can be dug up all day. This is simply a case of you don't like it. 76.112.25.222 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zombies 

message: There is another natural doomsday event scenario which it seems you have forgotten. The consequences of a possible huge Solar Flare could be disastrous for the earth's atmosphere (complete ozon layer destruction)and mass extinction event after the proton wind reaches earth.
I will add the refference with quotations in the natural events unless there is a dissagreement.Polemos (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Flare 

message: I marked the statement 'global warming leading to global climate change as a consequence of humanity's industrial abuse of nature.' as NPOV.  Comments before I remove it?-- φ OnePt618Talk φ   20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW statement 

message: I posit that "Doomsday" is a specific idiomatic term and is therefore singular and separate.
a) Specific idiomatic term:
* From cultural referencing: eg. Dr. Strangelove et al.
* As used in plain speaking  eg. "That is a Doomsday Scenario!" not "End of Days" or other phrase.
b) Singular:
* End of Days is much more limited to theological cosmology and beliefs
* Apocalypse is usually rendered in reference to man-made catastrophe or natural occurance
* Doomsday has culturally acquired a reference to a ELE brought about by human intervention, especially    scientific practices. As such it is appropriate to deal with this subject on its own page with the distinctions explicit.
I do agree that the article is meandering and not a class-A article.
It does require 1) language cleaning for clarity and technical robustness, 2) scientific oversight, 3) aggregation of near-identical terms etc. This may require a complete rewrite.
However I do think Doomsday is a quantifiable and suitable topic for an article.
Plutophanes
Αγαθος και Σωφος,  Σωφος και Καλος, Καλος  και  Αγαθος (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contextual Semantics 

message: This appears to be a marginally re-written version of an article published in Discover Magazine 10 years ago (specifically DISCOVER Vol. 21 No. 10, October 2000 by Corey S. Powell).  A copy of that article can be found here.  No, it is not an EXACT duplicate, it's just an extremely close match, of a type that would ordinarily be grounds for a plagiarism charge in academic circles.  The article editors may have something to say about this of course, so leaving a note before I request an administrator to investigate. - Markeer 00:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copyright issue 

message: I think it would be good if the article had the likellyhood of each of the events mentioned taking place. --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likellyhood of each event?