Talk:Long-term nuclear waste warning messages

Contested deletion

There is extensive scientific research done on the topic, and the article has just existed for a few minutes. /Yvwv (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the article. However, there are several links to it, though most behind the redirected title nuclear semiotics. The article Human Interference Task Force starts with the sentence "The field of nuclear semiotics arose in 1981...", so perhaps we should consider the relationship between that article, this one, and the title "Nuclear semiotics". Teemu Leisti (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Further discussion along Kwami's queries may be useful though. Jenks24 (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Long-time nuclear waste warning messages → Nuclear semiotics – Established name Yvwv (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – insufficient rationale for move provided. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I came to close this request and found things that we might want to clean up first. The original "nuclear semiotics" article was moved to Human Interference Task Force, where it (and its page history) remains to this day.[1] This page was created only recently with the justification that the two topics are not synonyms. Do we want to:

(1) merge the articles, per the rationale of the original move?

(2) split the other page history, returning the relevant part of it here?

(3) ignore all that, and just consider which name we want?

— kwami (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Semiotics" is unclear. To many people it looks like "half an ear". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 30 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Long-time nuclear waste warning messages → Long-term nuclear waste warning messages – "Long-time" seems like the wrong adjective to be using here, being explicitly retrospective ("a long-time friend") when the project is forward-looking. The 1984 Human Interference Task Force paper uses the phrase "long-term communication" throughout, and never "long-time". Lord Belbury (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support move In a cursory examination of the sources, I didn't find "long-time" but did find "long-term" in Permanent Markers Implementation Plan. In the article, "long-time" is only used in the lead, while "long-term" is used in the body. (To be honest, I never noticed the title used "time", in my head I just read it as "term" all along, until this move request was made.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. "Long-term" definitely seems to be the more appropriate term. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Probably uncontroversial enough to just move. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support move - Long-term is in common useage. I've seldom (outside of WP) seen long-time nuclear waste referred to as "long-time". Netherzone (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Circular Link

I see that it has a link to the German page that specifically translates to "Nuclear Semiotics", but the English page redirects back to here. Is the link in the second sentence necessary? Einstein runner (TC) 16:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty new here so I'll ask - Is it normal for English pages to link to pages in other languages? Assuming I've read the above discussion correctly, we had a page called "Nuclear Semiotics" and it was moved to "Human Interference Task Force". The German page seems to be much more detailed but surely that just means our Task Force page needs some love? I'm all in favour of removing the link, anyone clicking it to learn more about the topic gains nothing from being redirected back to the page they're on! Elemenopee9 (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Einstein runner I have removed the link, since nobody has objected and I cannot see any reason not to. Elemenopee9 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Necessity

Has there been no citable sources questioning whether or not this is even a necessary endeavor? Future civilizations will likely be very primitive, or very advanced (probably the former). If the civilization is very advanced, the knowledge of the waste's location would still be known and/or the means to detect it would be cheap and ubiquitous. If the civilization is primitive, the means of excavation would not be available. Also for both, the need to excavate would be questionable.

Thus, in both cases, the risk of inadvertently exposing themselves to nuclear waste is slim. Thornfield Hall (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)