Talk:Life After People

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Futures studies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies 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.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The contents of the Life After People: The Series page were merged into Life After People. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of Life After People episodes was copied or moved into Life After People with this edit on 02:31, 1 June 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of Life After People episodes was copied or moved into Life After People with this edit on 05:01, 1 June 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The article states that Life after people makes no mention of how people were removed from earth. This is true how ever the DVD contains deleted scenes that address what happens to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B D Lawnic (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this program has not yet aired, there is not much information about it. Please allow time for me to expand the article as more information becomes available. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got movie night, tonight, because of this, so I'll help as much as I can. Brandonrc2 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better now, probably since the program has since aired. :) Jmlk17 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who added to the article! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this at all based on the above book? 71.192.54.222 (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but useful as a see also. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is based on that book. the book was Time magazine best noon-fiction book of 2007 and inspired lots of documentaries like this one. i think the article should credited the book for starting this trend of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.41.237 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{in-universe}} tag to this article. It was removed with the summary (removed in-universe tag; this isn't "fiction" theoretical, yes, but not fiction). I disagree. This show is fictional. I have restored the tag. --Elliskev 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it's

WP:CRYSTAL apply as we're just explaining the theoretical outcomes suggested by these scientists in this program. Do you have a suggestion as to how the language here could actually be improved? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

User:clpo13 has made a good start. I haven't contributed much to this article, so I'll drop it. --Elliskev 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can't quibble over minor verb tense changes. The immediacy of the original style was a little confusing. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched this last night, and I remember it saying 600 million cars, not 900 as currently in the article... but I deleted it from the tivo so I can't easily check. Is this accurate? --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Google "life after people" and both "900 million cars" and "600 million cars". 600 million wins hands down. There are a bunch of sites that reference the show and that number precisely. sugarfish (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

find it strange that the HISTORY channel was showing this?--Jakezing (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, those channels (Discovery and its spinoffs, History, A&E, etc) were fairly true to their names, but recently they've come to have any random science stuff, or even soap operas. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the History Channel stepped into the breach because we don't have an 'Unverifiable Speculation Posing as Science Channel'. Does any contributor wish to make the case why 'Life after People' is worthy of an extensive entry in Wikipedia? Do we have to accept that everything shown on TV, regardless of its worth, is inevitably notable because it is seen by a lot of people and will inevitably have an impact? [This paragraph by se16teddy]

Just a note: talk pages are not meant for general discussion regarding the topic. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the article's page on the History Channel website, there is a segment of the program. Is it possible to cite this clip? --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam would take a lot less than 25 years to flood. The protection against the sea may last a few years without maintenance, but the land behind the dikes would fill up with fresh water very quickly without the constant pumping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.148.216 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unhelpful, unsubstantiated babble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is horrible, whoever wrote this obviously did not watch the show, as I'm watching it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.176.52 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the paragraph within the main article "Human successors and replacements", it is claimed that "Television and radio signals - will decompose into static within one or two light years". This probably means that any transmissions from our planet will not reach any distant worlds? Turing this concept around; does this also mean that any similar type signals that could potentially be broadcast from interstellar space would not be detected here on Earth?

Does this not bring into question the rational of the SETI project? They (SETI) may not be able to detect alien civilisations' if the types of signals that SETI are trying to detect are similar or analogous to that of TV and radio signals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.28.211 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. That was touched on in a passing remark if I remember correctly. --Bobson (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of this article are starting to put information from the show on this article, which is meant for the documentary. Will anyone consider putting a timeline on the show article instead of putting everything that goes on in the show here? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 18:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from so many things. Someone should copy edit this. For example: "New York City Subway(New York City)"... note the missing space between "Subway" and "(New...". This happens all over the place in this article. I am sure there is a template for "copy editing needed". It should be added by someone more knowledgeable with Wikipedia than I am. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes with regard to the tone and the logical division of the sections. Obviously we need many more citations for this article to be encyclopedia-worthy. I'll see what's out there but any help is much appreciated. Sreesarmatvm (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content merged from

The merger templates have been on these two pages since October or December 2009 and there are no arguments made against merger on the source talk page. The special served as a de facto pilot for the series. Johnm4 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, like all shows of this type (theoretical, speculative, or out right psuedo junk science), should have a section with a reception by scientists. What do the leading environmental, astronomy, biologist, and tech scientists etc. have to say about the show? Any psuedo-science/disinforation being refuted? JanderVK (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Life After People. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429170535/http://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people/ to http://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429170535/http://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people/ to http://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this is not the right forum for this remakr, but as the right forum seems too difficult to find, here goes .... The concrete frames of a number of modern skysraper-type buildings supposedly will last tens of thousands of years. Far, ar longer than the commonly quoted Pyramids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.7.163 (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life After People. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209145400/http://www.history.com/content/life_after_people/about-the-series to http://www.history.com/content/life_after_people/about-the-series

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life After People. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://youtube/GyEUyqfrScU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529032825/http://www.thehistorychannel.com.au/tv-shows/lap-default.aspx to http://www.thehistorychannel.com.au/tv-shows/lap-default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]