Wikipedia

Talk:2012 phenomenon/Archive 14

< Talk:2012 phenomenon
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Zeke, the Mad Horrorist in topic Proposed merger
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

past tense

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't this be updated to past tense now that all the referenced dates have past? Much of the content still portrays this as something that could happen in the future.Practicality (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Practicality: It was mostly already past tense; though I went through the article and fixed a couple places that weren't. Is it better now? If not feel free to fix anything that still needs updating. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2012 phenomenon. 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.

 Y 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 phenomenon. 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.

 Y 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Apocalypse

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

As I recall, Coe put the date as December 11, 2012. If this is correct, Coe's faulty calculation should be retained and noted, not elided out of the quotation from his work.156.98.252.252 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Whoops! Looks like there is a note of some kind. Could go back and see what date Coe used in the edition I was reading a few days ago, but don't think it's worth the bother.156.98.252.252 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Aha! There it is. Mark Van Stone in Citation 78 clears it up: Coe originally calculated the date as 2011,not 2012, and that's what I misremembered. Let's see if I can slip in a correction without a footnote, which I've never bothered to learn to insert.156.98.252.252 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There.Probably not an exact quote but closer to the sense of Coe's text then that bit of bracket weaselry.156.98.252.252 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's either the 1966 text or it ain't, bud. Can't have it both ways. Cheers.156.98.252.252 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The square brackets make it clear that it is an insertion, and the note makes clear that Coe eventually settled on December 2012. Serendipodous 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what date he "eventually settled on". The claim is that he said it in 1966 and he did not. You need to do a rewrite, not try to present a spurious timeline. Other prominent Mayanist scholars before and after Coe addressed this issue and Coe did not in fact publish any reference to the "2012 Phenomenon" in 1966. What he published IN 1966 was a reference to a 2011 phenomenon. The genealogy of this idea is more complicated than what you are representing and this needs to be made clear in the text of the article, not "corrected" with statements Coe published a quarter-century later. The undeniable fact is that COE DID NOT REFER TO A 2012 PHENOMENON IN 1966 and altering a quotation to make it look as though he did is simply shoddy and misleading scholarship.156.98.252.252 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Then I won't mention a date at all. Serendipodous 22:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Adoption by mainstream media

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The predictions of the end of the world was entirely New Age, utterly without any scientific foundation or logic, and promoted by a handful of lunatics who were misrepresenting Mayan religion. So why were these clearly false predictions adopted by the mainstream media, and promoted as if the had any credibility? That strange phenomenon itself deserves an article, or at least a paragraph here.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the mainstream media"? I'm not aware of any mainstream medium (with the possible exception of the movie) that endorsed the phenomenon. Most held it at a distance or treated it ironically, and were not even aware of the details of this. In fact, even the supposed "informative" media tended to get this wrong. Serendipodous 05:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


Origins?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, I'm not sure how you would cite this, but for me (and probably many others), the first time I heard the original Coe date, 24 December 2011, was at the end of The_Outer_Space_Connection, also in 1975, which I believe was also the last thing Rod Serling ever worked on (and the predecessor to "In Search of"). Joel J. Rane (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 phenomenon. 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}}).

 Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's 2016 and nothing happened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.88 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2012 phenomenon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 phenomenon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 phenomenon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 phenomenon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 phenomenon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 phenomenon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Baktun

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Re: info box, and creation at 13.0.0.0.0. I don’t get how (Dec21) 2012 is the end of a baktun, but it’s still 13.0.0.0.0. Especially since the 13 is the baktun number.

Any chance of making that clearer? MBG02 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The Maya considered the first day of the new B'ak'tun the last day of the old one, hence why they called the date of the last creation "13.0.0.0.0" instead of "0.0.0.0.0". Serendipodous 09:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar Senor Cuete (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
(I hope this is not too dumb). Is the next day (Dec 22) 14.0.0.0.01? MBG02 (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
No, read the Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar article. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hard no on the merger with Web Bot, an article which despite its short length is too broad in scope to focus solely on the 2012 phenomenon which is only briefly mentioned in a single segment of the article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Right now Wikipedia is arguably the only source still giving oxygen to this stupid idea. The 2012 phenomeon is the only reason it got noticed in the first place. Serendipodous 14:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Be that as it may, both topics are as intertwined as they need to be, and Web Bot has enough material to stand as its own article, at least for the time being. Web Bot clearly has some significance in the mainstream, no matter how minor, and even if the 2012 phenomenon is what brought it to prominence it clearly exists well outside of that topic area as well. There is nothing to merge here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_phenomenon/Archive_14&oldid=1176512795"