This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Long-term nuclear waste warning messages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 ( T C) 16:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
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)