future event

The most widely used set of guidelines for documenting future events Wikipedia future event documentation guidelines Wikipedia.

''The living ontology and openpolitics.ca itself follow a much more rigorous set of requirements especially for issue/position/arguments which often involves prediction statements, and evidence/source/authority supporting arguments. See those articles, others on the adjectives:
and the list of commit verbs, and - as of 2005, various example articles on future events such as Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2006 and Ontario general election, 2007.''

things to do

  • give space to prediction or speculation that the event will never occur, even if this is extremely politically or socially contentious
    • "This includes technology that some people really really want, like AI passing a universal Turing Test or human medical immortality or AI beating Go master."
    • It also includes elections and referenda, e.g. Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2006
  • Include, for scheduled events, the schedule in tabular or list form within a single article rather than letting it spread across many articles.
  • Similarly, combine articles that mention several plans to achieve the same result. For example, "an article about a manned expedition to Mars should have a title like human landing on Mars that includes all known plans to do that, but, as the plans become advanced, they might each get their own articles."
  • Differentiate a theory about an event, e.g. Hubbert peak, from a more specific prediction that the event will occur or has occurred at a specific time, from all of the speculation about the event or its importance, or from positions on it, e.g. Ignore Peak Oil
  • Widely anticipated events that have an
"extreme range of possible outcomes and potential for chaos, like global thermonuclear war, should have separate articles about the predicted effects of global thermonuclear war if this starts to dominate the article about the phenomena."
  • When any anticipated future event occurs, "do everything you can to keep strictly separate the predicted effect from the actual effect and alleged effect. "Though it is an extremely controversial topic, predicted effects of invading Iraq and actual effects of invading Iraq demonstrate how this can and should be done. After the event, make sure that no actual effects are permitted on the list of predicted events without full attribution and documentation that the effect was predicted before it occurred. Claiming to have predicted things after they actually occurred is the default, whether the prognosticator actually did, or not!
  • "Having good lists of predicted effects will help to sort out which of the actual effects were predicted, and which were only claimed to have been predicted post-facto. This eases the editorial verification work considerably on such large scale events."

things not to do

  • "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable names."
  • Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and may belong only in articles about notable artistic works of fiction, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. "An article on Star Wars and Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War IV" is not."


There is no credible cite link known on these issues. In the meantime, refer link Wikipedia future event documentation guidelines.