Talk:Long Now Foundation

Futures studies Mid‑importance

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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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

02010

no one's avoiding the 10,000 year problem by using this new year notation-style. the problem is about software bugs, no? all I need to address for now is that sentence in the first paragraph that says "avoid the 10,000 year problem". could someone fix that cuz I'll... I got it.

someone might want to have a look at the fact that in Holocene Era its not 02010 but 12010 user:anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.104.142 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

02010 instead of 2010

That's only (about) 8,000 years remaining, not 10,000. Multi io (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 5-digit years in this article

The organization is known for using 5-digit years to encourage people to think about the future, so for example, this year is 02015. Some users have put 5-digit years within this article either entirely or in just the infobox at the top. I think it is too much to use this non-standard formatting throughout the article so I agree with this reversion, but I think it is appropriate to use it only in one place in the infobox where the organization identifies itself. I made the argument that this fits with

I don't think WP:IDENTITY covers that kind of thing (not in letter or in spirit).

Here's a comparison to another group, the band Metsatöll uses a different date system across all of its stuff, like seen here: their website -- for example in "24.04.10228" the 10228 refers to the year 2015. Do their Wikipedia articles care about their preference? No, of course not.

(Having said that, I don't really mind, personally. I won't revert it.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I also am unsure. I still defend WP:IDENTITY. Other cultures which use other calendar systems, like the

Bengali calendar

or any other one, take pride in having important dates listed with their own system, and oppose having other cultures encroach too much on the ways that they identify their culture. Obviously this organization is not a deep culture with a long history, but there is a multi-year history of people coming to Wikipedia and suggesting that this article should use 5-digit dates. The claim in Wikipedia is not without some external cultural backing.

If someone changed the date to 4-digits I would not oppose that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change it to 4-digit. It just looks unsightly and Wikipedia as a whole does not align it's way of dating things to this organization or any other. I shall however keep the added 0 in the quote by the organization and the title of the music album as that seems acceptable. Cls14 (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bug. If I view this in reply mode, it looks like an unsigned comment with 3 objects. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this is an article written in the style of self-promotion. In the very least it should not open with its foundation year written in any other way than the conventional format of four digits only. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We actually it isn't so slowly. I am going at a fairly good pace here.

If anyone knows a way to merge several source entries into one? That would be nice, I find myself citing the page http://www.longnow.org/about/ quite a lot.

Zell Faze (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I figured it out. Zell Faze (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you missed some. --Gwern (contribs) 17:58 5 April 2010 (GMT)

Added more sources regarding the Rosetta Disk. I don't know if I have done it right since I am new on the Wikipedia. Please anyone feel free to correct. Toubrouk (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Long Bet, says "Bets coming due in 2010 include..." Errr... aren't we approaching 2012? Someone should update this section. Yoshm (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the X with the overline? I suspect this is supposed to symbolize something? Kortoso (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprising that no one has added details of this project at The Long Now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.149.240 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I came here to say that. But I understand the problem: Revive & Restore was "incubated" within The Long Now Foundation, but now is its own entity. I don't feel qualified to decide whether it warrants its own article. (Or a subsection in the De-extinction article perhaps.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdelwiche (talk • contribs) 05:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long Now Foundation. 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/20041220162225/http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2004/01/01_mpp.html to http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2004/01/01_mpp.html/

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) 13:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title is clearly wrong. It is The Long Now Foundation, not Long Now. Can anyone enlighten me if I am wrong? GeraldWL 13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Joojay: It is clearly stated that the foundation is called "The Long Now Foundation." It is not "Long Now Foundation." The name of the foundation must correspond with the title. I hope that points out my issue. GeraldWL 04:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]