"Weeding" the Timeline & Early Timeline Contribution Guidelines?

[Drashner1]

Hang on there's definitely important stuff here. I'm posting from my phone so don't have time to go into it but several of those dates provide valuable context for the early timeline. The Gobi project for instance shows the first significant attempts at building a closed ecological system. Sensibly the project is on Earth but paves the way for later sea, space and hostile environment colonisation.

We revampt the early timeline a year or so ago to add entries like this because without them advanced technology and infrastructure projects just pop up later, seemingly fully formed.

Also as a point of procedure can we not go hacking away at the EG without some discussion first? Small entries are one thing but dozens of them removed with nothing more than one persons say is quite damaging.

Agreed on all points.

As Rynn says, some of these entries were added to provide context or a sense of development for later technology and infrastructure. This from the last major revamp of the timeline(s) that was done not that long ago.

And most especially, just because one person doesn't see the context or point of a particular entry does not justify removing it. For one thing, that person may not know the context or background of why the entry is there or may not realize (as has been demonstrated already) that there actually are full EG entries behind the timeline entry in question.

I would suggest that time be given for discussion of any removal and in particular that the senior members/board needs to be actively involved in that discussion before actual removal takes place.

Todd

[QwertyYerty]

Agreed on all points.

As Rynn says, some of these entries were added to provide context or a sense of development for later technology and infrastructure. This from the last major revamp of the timeline(s) that was done not that long ago.

And most especially, just because one person doesn't see the context or point of a particular entry does not justify removing it. For one thing, that person may not know the context or background of why the entry is there or may not realize (as has been demonstrated already) that there actually are full EG entries behind the timeline entry in question.

I would suggest that time be given for discussion of any removal and in particular that the senior members/board needs to be actively involved in that discussion before actual removal takes place.

Todd

Alright, that sounds good. What should be focused on first? I know I am not a senior member but I want to contribute to help steamline OA history.

[Drashner1]

Alright, that sounds good. What should be focused on first? I know I am not a senior member but I want to contribute to help steamline OA history.

A good starting point is to see how many of the entries in question have articles in the EG that they should be linked to. Steve has started this, but there are probably more.

For the remainder, we should discuss whether an article should be generated or if the timeline entry should instead be removed.

For example, I don't think we have an article on autonomous cars. But they are widely seen as coming in some form fairly soon. Which may or may not be an argument for either removing them from the timeline or generating an article about them or autonomous vehicles in general.

Finally, we might also consider if some entries and articles might work better if consolidated into some larger topical article that might or might not justify a timeline entry.

My 2c worth,

Todd

[QwertyYerty]

A good starting point is to see how many of the entries in question have articles in the EG that they should be linked to. Steve has started this, but there are probably more.

For the remainder, we should discuss whether an article should be generated or if the timeline entry should instead be removed.

For example, I don't think we have an article on autonomous cars. But they are widely seen as coming in some form fairly soon. Which may or may not be an argument for either removing them from the timeline or generating an article about them or autonomous vehicles in general.

Finally, we might also consider if some entries and articles might work better if consolidated into some larger topical article that might or might not justify a timeline entry.

My 2c worth,

Todd

I have a suggestion on where we should start the discussion. Two entries on the early timeline to start a discussion on and/ or delete are:

52 (2022 ce.)- Continued environmental degradation in some third-world countries.

Because environmental degradation will still be occuring all over the planet (for example the Netherlands and Florida will still be at risk for mass flooding) and it doesn't connect to any articles. Additionally, this sentence implies that environmental degradation has stopped in the majority if countries, which seems unlikely to happen in only 6 years.

And

55 (2025 c.e.) - Laser Weapons first used in warfare.

It connects to a article, but that article doesn't explain the history of laser weapons and doesn't mention anything about this one.

What is supposed to be meant by this entry? Because the lay reader will think portable laser guns will exist in less than 10 years, which is hard to belive. Is this meant as antimissle defense? This should be clarified or deleted. I would delete it because this current entry on the timeline doesn't add detail to the history of laser weapons and can easily become outdated in less than 10 years.

[stevebowers]

I think I added that one, back in about 2007 when the first tests of tactical lasers were taking place.

Anti missile lasers were successfully tested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
but that particular system was scrapped in 2014. I expect that anti-missile lasers will be used in combat in the next few decades, but we can't be certain when that will be. Since Luke's article doesn't mention when (or if) these systems are first used, we can certainly remove this one.

[stevebowers]

Note that the Laser Weapon article does mention the early development of lasers, but only in a very sketchy fashion; Luke has written extensively on the subject elsewhere, and his material is recommended, since that is his professional field.
http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/DeathRay.html
but he hasn't established a timeline for early use, so maybe we shouldn't, either.

Entry removed.

[Drashner1]

Based on the arguments made so far, I would be OK with removing these two entries.

Based on the points raised earlier, what do others think? In particular, are there any other senior members who want to weigh in on this?

Thanks!

Todd

[Rynn]

I don't mind removing the laser-in-warfare mention. Perhaps change the climate change one to;

52 (2022 ce.)- Environmental degradation leads to famine and mass migration in some poorer countries.

Also how do people feel about adding an entry that touches on the recent successes and announcements by SpaceX? Something along the lines of:

50s (2020s ce.)- Reusable rocket systems fully developed, dropping the cost to low orbit and beyond. Non-telecom commercial projects in orbit viable from this point.

[selden]

I'd suggest "mass migrations from some poorer countries." (as is already happening) since staying in a poor country won't do much good.

[Drashner1]

50s (2020s ce.)- Reusable rocket systems fully developed, dropping the cost to low orbit and beyond. Non-telecom commercial projects in orbit viable from this point.

IIRC we have some mention of SSTO or advances in launch capability coming along a bit later in the timeline. As long as this wouldn't conflict with what we already have, I'm fine with adding it in.

If it would conflict, then let's discuss.

Todd