Talk:Life After People: The Series

Merge with Life After People

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Life After People. -- Johnm4 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I believe the article, now that it has reached it's second season, should be merged with Life After People, the parent article for the original 2-hour special which was used as a pilot for the series.

These "Prediction Timetables", although informative, are getting overworded, and merging the list on this page, with the one over at Life After People, plus adding new info from Season 2 will be difficult – so I think they should be done away with completely. Why? Well if you wanna know the show's details GO WATCH THE SHOW! It's free on Google Video anyway. We could probably keep a small list with only the important details.

Anyway, my proposal is to merge the articles. Any thoughts? Cyberia23 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree a merger would work. Sparrowman980 (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The series and the special are two separate things. They should thus be kept separate because of the fact that they also were aired many months apart. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That alone really isn't sufficient reason to keep them separate. They have almost exactly the same name, and cover exactly the same subject matter. Essentially the special was the pilot for the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge I suggested this originally. Two hour special was essentially the pilot for the series. Cyberia23 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge The show is just a continuation of the special (or special was a pilot as noted above). Johnm4 (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2010 (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.

Any thoughts?: response

The point of the timetable is to give a clear and detailed synopsis of the show. You could add a link to Google video, if you feel it is necessary. another use of the timetable is to provide on Wikipedia what most viewers would like to see: a chart showing how far in the future verses what would survive. Most people who watch the show can't keep that timetable strait in their head.

However, to make the timetable less wordy, I would suggest taking out all the "examples" (i.e. the mention of Gary, Indiana). They don't seem to have any real purpose there. Instead, I would make a "list of examples" at the bottom of the article. in bullet form, as opposed to a chart.

I also think that merging the articles would be ill advised. both articles, being rather large, would make the article a bit too busy. It would be like merging list of English monarchs with list of British monarchs. Of coarse they go together, but together they are a bit too busy.Nate5713 (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the article (and Wikipedia in general) isn't to explain every detail of the show. As it almost stands right now, you don't really have to watch the show, you can pretty much read the article and get all the info – that's not what is intended. So, explaining only when major generalized events occur at what times would probably be better. That way both articles could be combined. "200 AP: steel bridges start to collapse, 500 AP: most skyscrapers begin to collapse, 10,000 AP: major cities become unrecognizable as they lay under forests"; these could be, for example, all the detail that is given.

I believe it was assumed from the beginning that the special was going to be a stand alone movie without a sequel, so the article for that was made and got over-worded with every detail. Then the 10 episode series appeared, (adding 10 more hours of detail) and I think again no one expected a season 2. I'm assuming there will be 10 more new episodes and 10 more hours of info. The time table will reach critical mass and become a confusing mess. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hears a thought: we take out the tables, merge the articles, But create a new article called "history of Life after people". This would contain all the timetables from both articles. I'm sorry, but we need to keep that history for connivance.Nate5713 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah thinking about that myself Cyberia23 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The most logical thing to do would be to split the episode tables out into List of Life After People episodes, as per other TV series. The remaining content merged from both articles, including the timetables, totals around 49KB, well within the size for an article. There's really no need to eliminate the timetables. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem is dealing with these overworded anon-edits that want to include every stupid detail. I just got done cleaning up from them yet again – which they'll just slap back in and start a edit war. If the list was broken down and enforced as a general summary it wouldn't be a problem. Do we really freaking care about the cats at the Vatican and what happens to them, or sheep and shepherd dogs? – I don't find it interesting and it's clearly the show looking for stupid crap to feature because they need to fill 45 minutes of air time. These anons need to stop or someone has to enforce a block on them – good luck cause they change their IP address every day. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still see some benefit in the timeline but I agree that the trivial points should be excluded and only the most notable issues should be included. For example, power stations shutting down after only a day is notable, the refinery fire in Houston after one hour is not. The ISS de-orbiting is notable, as is the destruction of the shroud of Turin. There is no doubt that the table needs serious pruning. If we can agree about this, then it can be enforced when the IPs return.

I'm also of the opinion that the list of "featured countries" is non-notable, but I see that was returned too.[1] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've requested temporary protection of the page.[2] Hopefully that will force the IP to have to discuss the issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article had temp anon block on it before, for a week, as soon as it ended the anon came right back. Cyberia23 (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't appear in the protection log.[3]]. In the meantime, we can decide the best thing to do with the table. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

May have been the other article then Life After People – for the pilot. The anon edits there as well, though not as often as the series. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the table, I've copied it to my user pages and have pruned it to just what I see as the globally notable and significant events.[4] In doing so, I've identified a number of entries that would be better included in the episode summaries,[5] but I'd have to watch the series again to know where to add them. Comments? --AussieLegend (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good – I was working on consolidating the list myself, but it's a daunting task that I been putting it off. Glad you stepped in to help.

• So is the plan to put the condensed timetable in the Life After People article?
• Redirect Life After People: The Series to Life After People?
• Put the episode list on List of Life After People episodes?

Cyberia23 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, yes and yes, but not necessarily in that order. Life After People has its own bloated timeline and some of what's in it is/was duplicated here so it needs pruning and merging as necessary. I'll have a look at that next. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, let's not do anything too hasty, now!! I would like to post a defense for these timetables. I, and apparently the IP's, personally likes the timetable Just the way it was!!!!. People like me needs to take all the information thrown at me by the show, and condense it, take out unnecessary poetry like "stands like giant tombstones", and reorganize it, into a definitive, easy to understand, and unabridged chart. I take back what I said earlier, it is not a synopsis. It is a detailed history of a Life After People. These "anons" as you call them, just wanted to right a history, like you would write history of the DC universe or history of mythologic Sumeria, they thought Wikipedia would be a way of showing there painstaking history to the world. But nooooooooooo, you want to Destroy their work, and redact it in your own image.Nate5713 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, our procedure changes to:

• Change the timetables to back the way they were.
• Move the timetables to a separate article called History of Life After People.
• Merge the articles Life After People and Life After People: The Series. Nate2357 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out above,[6] the purpose of the article isn't to explain every detail of the show. The timetable as it was, was essentially just an extremely detailed plot summary of the series, which is against Wikipedia's general policies and practices. If you create a separate article that contains just the timetable I can pretty much guarantee it will go to AfD because it fails WP:PLOT with a result of "merge to Life After People and redirect". Wikipedia is not a TV guide or a fansite, it's an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias don't contain the sort of detail about TV programs that the timetable did.

Off-topic but I'm just wondering, are Nate2357 and Nate5713 the same person? --AussieLegend (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I in fact wrote most of the timetable and I saw it becoming unwieldy especially with season two coming in, and the anons were just adding to what I had, but doing so in an overworded fashion. One was quoting almost word for word dialog for the series which is a copyright no no. "For the Doomsday Vault, doomsday is here" I don't know how many friggin times I had to delete it before the anon stopped adding it. So I for one am sort of glad the monster had been tamed. You can watch the show for free on Google videos. If you want a history of Life After People then write up your own or just watch the show. It's not a metter of censorship, it's a matter of making a sensible article. Cyberia23 (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what is "significant" of life after people is truly relative.

• You include Big Ben not chiming, But you leave out animals returning to cities around the world.
• You include the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, But you leave out the U.S. Bank Tower.
• You include Lenin's body aging, But you leave out oil refineries exploding. Nate2357 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

y'know, if you take out all the "miner" entries from the timetable, it looks no different than the timetable of the "Life After People" article. Power goes out... pets escape... buildings collapse... etc. are not just the only real "significant" events, but they are also common to both articles. Nate2357 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Ben running down is a matter of fact, animals returning to the cities is trivial speculation. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is globally significant while the U.S. Bank Tower is significant to people only in the US. Lenin's body, and others are golablly recognised while fires in some US refineries are also relevant only to the US, as well as being speculative. Pets escaping are trivial, even the globally known Queen's corgies. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, this is what I meant by relative. You see, where as the U.S. Bank Tower is significant to the U.S., Big Ben's chimes is not significant to anyone. There are Oil refineries around the world, and they probably all go the way of Houston. Also, "speculative" does not necessarily mean minor, it just means you don't believe it. Anyway, animals walking the streets of Manhattan is not speculative. It is, in fact, the very image of Life After People. Note that an eco-system in the Chrysler building is in the opening, and not Big Ben.Nate5713 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Ben is known globally. The US Bank Tower is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and does not deal in speculation. There is certainly no guarantee of an oil fire so it's not the sort of thing encyclopaedias deal with. It's part of the plot but it's only one small part. Animals walking the streets of Manhattan in the timeframe suggested is indeed speculative. We can guarantee that Big Ben will run down at a specific time. We cannot guarantee that monkeys will learn to raise birds and harvest their eggs in a specific timeframe. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In Life After People: the Series Big Ben stops after 1 week. In Aftermath: Population Zero, however, it stops after 3 days. So much for certainty, then. Big Ben is known globally, so when it falls, that's significant. But simply losing track of time is like cats returning to Rome or the Eternal Flame going out, nobody notices. Also, you're misinterpreting the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia records events, and not weather it is right or wrong. However, my point is that these kind of events are relative. You could emphasize one thing, and not another, and I would be vica-versa. Nate5713 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Ben has to be wound three times a week so it can strike the hours. However, it will continue running for a week, even after there is not enough power in the mechanism to strike out the hours. Regardless, there is a finite, measurable amount of time after which Big Ben will stop. There is not a finite period of time after which an oil fire will start. Any timeframe specified is speculation. An encyclopaedia does record events, but it records past events and doesn't speculate about future events, and that's what a lot of the things that you want to include do. It also doesn't go into the amount of detail that you apparetly wish it to. We simply do not need to include detailed plot summaries, which is what the table was. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting Wikipedia's policy. We are not speculating at all by saying that the History Channel speculations. In other words, the fact remains that the History Channel makes these speculations (No one really knows what Life After People would be like, anyway). It is Wikipedia's duty to report what the History Channel says, depending on whether it is significant to the plot, or at least that is what you say. My point throughout this discussion is that no one can agree on what is "significant" and what is "not". It is truly relative. your arguing only proves my point. But, if it is up to what is significant, then I would suggest that which breeds the opening of Life after People, and not that which merely tells time.--Nate5713 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, the official website of Life After People has a timetable with much more information than Wikipedia's. Perhaps these so called "IPs" were simply updating Wikipedia to step up to meet the standards. Nate5713 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps they think Wikipedia is a TV guide when, clearly, it is not! --AussieLegend (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikia fan site linked to would be a good place for fans to record every detail of the show, if they so desire. However Wikipedia is not a fan site, and articles here should not have this kind of long and indiscriminate list. As stated in the "What Wikipedia is not" guidelines linked above, Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details." It should instead be a concise and clear summary of the topic. Now I think part of being a good summary is including some examples, but only a small number of insightful examples. --Cornprone (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Depending on significance? Haven't I thoroughly proven that that is relative? For I repeat: We are not speculating at all by saying that the History Channel speculations. In other words, the fact remains that the History Channel makes these speculations (No one really knows what Life After People would be like, anyway). It is Wikipedia's duty to report what the History Channel says, depending on whether it is significant to the plot, or at least that is what you say. My point throughout this discussion is that no one can agree on what is "significant" and what is "not". It is truly relative. your arguing only proves my point. But, if it is up to what is significant, then I would suggest that which breeds the opening of Life after People, and not that which merely tells time. Nate5713 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As to Wikipedia not being a directory, I propose an alternative. Why not a word-for-word summery of Life After People: The Series on Wikisource.? Nate5713 (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdent

No, you haven't "thoroughly proven that that is relative?" Nobody said that we were speculating, I said that the program is speculating. There's a difference. I said that things like the globally known Big Ben runninmg down will happen within a finite timeframe. Things like oil fires at some globally unknown American oil refinery may not. The article says that the table "lists some of the more globally notable and significant events, as well as some of the lesser events used to establish a timeline". None of the events that you wish to see in the table are globally notable or significant events, nor do they establish a timeline. This is not relative, it's a clear definition. Please also note that it says some, not all. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so certain? do you think of yourself as the foremost expert on life after people? after all, the History Channel never claims to be speculating, never mentions the word speculate. Only you claim to have the secret knowledge of what is certain, and what is not. It is simply your opinion, and therefore relative. For the show:

• Says, with absolute certainty, that oil refineries explode after 1 hour.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that Breweries in St. Louis explode after 2 days.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that wax figures in Las Vegas melt after 3 days.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that head lice begins to die off after 3 days.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that the Aloha clock tower stops moving after 3 days. (another clock, and therefore certain, right?)
• Says, with absolute certainty, that Hyacinth takes over Florida and Texas after 1 week.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that Aquariums shut down after 1 week.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that Asian long-horned beetles infest central park after 10 days.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that garbage from California to Japan collects in the south Pacific after 2 weeks.
• Says, with absolute certainty, that embryos, cryonically frozen decompose after 1 month.Nate5713 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the shows certainty, take it up with the History channel, don't valve your frustration on Wikipedia. It is Wikipedia's duty to report the information, and not question whether it is right or wrong. By the way, if Big Ben is wound 3 times a week, then shouldn't it stop after 1/3 of a week?Nate5713 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource

I have been browsing around for a solution and I believe I have found one. Wikisource is said to contain the full text of documents, why not a word-for-word history of Life After People? Nate2357 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lafe After People isn't a document. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We will make it a document. There is no real substitute for this article. Nate5713 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource by its definition is a library of free content sources. This television series is copyrighted, so a word-for-word transcript would probably not be welcome there. I'd recommend the Wikia fan wiki you linked to earlier as a better place to dump this information, if you so desire. --Cornprone (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gateway Arch

Could someone tell me what is "Not globally notable or significant." about the WORLD'S largest stainless steel structure in an article about how long structures will last after people? Was the sin that it is in St. Louis and AussieLegend doesn't think there is anything "globally notable or significant" in St. Louis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Reichert (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's really very simple. Structures like the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, Statue of Liberty and the Great Pyramid of Giza are globally known and recognised. The Gateway Arch however, is relatively unknown outside of the United States. The aim here is to reduce the size of the table, which I'm beginning to think shouldn't be in the article after all, which is why it has been limited to globally notable and significant objects and events. Don't take it personally if you come from St Louis. There's a lot of other things that have been omitted.

Again, AussieLegend, you seem to make your personal opinion as absolute truth. I personally think of the gateway Arch as just as significant as the Eiffel Tower, or the Statue of Liberty. I think you should stop taking that which is relative, and turning it into codified law. It's getting annoying. The St. Louis Arch is known worldwide. If it is a matter of what is known globally, then I would suggest animals in cities. That is worldwide, and is mentioned countless times on the show. 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.57.15 (talk)

I suggest you re-read what you've written. You've criticised me for applying my personal opinion (which I haven't) but then used your own personal opinion to try to justify inclusion. That's more than a little hypocritical. It's also unconvincing because personal opinions don't matter here. We need to maintain a neutral point of view and the neutral point of view is as I've stated. As for the animals, the animal reference is almost always US centric. I can guarantee you won't find bobcats or monkeys living in the skyscrapers of Sydney. Other references, like cats roaming around the Vatican, are fairly trivial. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, AussieLegend, although I agree with you that the timetable needs to be trimmed, I disagree with your rationale that this article needs to only feature "globally significant" subjects. This article is supposed to accurately represent the contents of the show Life After People, whether those contents are "U.S. centric" or not. It's about how significant these things are in the show; no other judgments are required. That said, since I'm advocating the removal of most of the timetable contents, I'm certainly not arguing that more pieces of trivia be added to this article. --Cornprone (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for limiting it to globally notable or significant events was to enable it to be trimmed. There has to be some criteria for inclusion, otherwise how can you possibly start to trim it? If you don't establish criteria then you only have two choices, everything or nothing. Clearly we don't want everything so nothing is our obvious course. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The criterion I would use is: "Does this example effectively represent the overall content of this series?" Using that as a guide, I'd whittle down the list to a few of the most prominent examples.--Cornprone (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems pretty ambiguous. Depending on your point of view every prediction could satisfy that criteria. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My point, Assielegend, is that your opinion is just as significant as mine. You say, "that's not significant!" I say it is. We are both right. Since these terms are relative, (Significant, Global, Speculative, etc.) we are faced with three options:

• Mention everything of the show (which is not unheard of).
• Mention nothing of the show (delete the article)
• redefine a new criteria. (Nate5713 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

What you're missing is that it's not my opinion. Determining whether something is globally notable or significant isn't rocket science and you don't have to resort to personal opinion to determine inclusion based on the criteria. As for your three options, they clearly are not the only ones. Wikisource is inappropriate, as is deleting the article. The last is unnecessary since the direction we seem to be heading is just deleting the table. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as the timetable exists in its current form, people will want to add to it. I recommend replacing it with one or two paragraphs of prose with much less detail than the current table. --Cornprone (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was all for keeping the table but I'm now convinced that it should go. It's just too hard to maintain and the effort involved far outweighs its limited encyclopaedic value. If Cyberia23 agrees (I think it was he who added the table), it can be removed. I'm not sure about replacing it with prose though. That's liable to suffer the same problem. The "Synopsis" section pretty much covers everything already, in a couple of lines. If you have some suggestions though, we can always try to incorporate them. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually begin the table, someone else did. It was a mess at first and I just reorganized it and kept it updated. I eventually trimmed it way down and thats when the driveby anons started appearing and reverted my trimmings and started adding more BS to it where it became a bloated mess. Cyberia23 (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting rid of the time table

It's too bad, but I agree to delete the time table all together if there is going to be constant edit wars over what gets included into it and what is to be left out. It shouldn't have been any one user's domain but order needs to be maintained and its done nothing but destabilize the quality of the article.

Back when the show was just a 2-hour special the table made sense, then as we got a season's worth of material it started to get too big, and then another season began to creep in, and we'll probably get a 3rd, and 4th and so on as the shows popularity grows. Given so much info now it's impossible to maintain a clean and balanced article. The time table is no longer useful. Keeping brief episode summaries is the better approach.

Some of the stuff in the table would probably fit better with other articles about natural disasters, the abandonment of cities, or "end of the world" an article on urban decay and neglect or something with Life After People given as a source to those events or things that could happen.

This show has too many fans who want to add everything and its just way to much that it becomes a confusing mess. You have to be sensible when editing, and if you can't be one then get out of Wikipedia.

Still the biggest problem with this article are these, what I call "drive by anons", who come here and revert everything without discussion. They don't respond to messages with or pay attention to requests to stop, and they change their IP addresses on a dime so you can't block them easily. I believe there are at least 2 people doing this BS and it needs to stop. Page locking does nothing really because once it's down they come right back and do it again. Cyberia23 (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now deleted the table after expanding the synopsis. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the list of episodes should be moved back to the main article to fill out the page a little more? It's currently a separate article. My only concern is it will probably become the "new time table" as the anons will probably want to fill that up with their trivial facts. Cyberia23 (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that it exists, the episode list really should remain a separate article. This article really needs to be expanded with sections on production, reception etc. I have no doubt that the drive by anons will be back here at some time restoring the table for a while, until it's protected again. The episode article is easier to manage. Episode summaries should be exactly that and no more than 3-4 lines. Adding timetable information into them just won't work and any attempt to add the table there can be reverted as it's not content suitable for that page. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Different kind of table

In each epidsode there is a section that starts "It has already happened before..." and they explain how some effect has happened because some location was abandoned. Would it be noteworthy to have a table of episodes and the real-world abandoned places that were "showcased" in that episode? --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be the List of Life After People episodes and it already has each episode's featured example of current abandonment/decay. Cyberia23 (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Doh I didn't even see that article. Thanks for pointing it out. :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)