Talk:Time Traveler Convention

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 July 31. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Crowded[edit]

As far as I know, nobody from the future wants to attend. Too crowded. 165.230.149.141 23:59, 7 May 2105 (UTC)[reply]

Tense[edit]

Note on tense usage: historical information about what happened at the convention should be in past tense as usual, but the invitation to future time travelers remains open so should be described in the present tense. I think a hypothetical future time traveler's attendance makes most sense in the future tense, because it's in their personal future and that's the viewpoint that's relevant. Thus "an invention ... would be particularly welcome". 81.168.80.170 08:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

Amal will be graduating soon (in the next couple terms), and as such, his "official" website on web.mit.edu will be removed. Any ideas on a slightly more permanent link we might use? (Wayback machine, maybe? Hopefully it'll get archived there soon.) The NYT article would be good, except that it's not freely accessible. Aerion //talk 06:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible to get it onto Geocities, Altavista, or a similar free webhost? UK-Logician-2006 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future possibility[edit]

Since no one from the future showed up, does that mean none of my descendents could possibly come back for this?Cameron Nedland 03:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because with then not showing up, the future changed (because of the changes that they would make if they stayed there), and maybe because of those changes they will go there. 201.58.120.70 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More tense[edit]

"The spacetime coordinates continue to be publicized prominently and indefinitely, so that future time travelers will be aware and have the opportunity to have attended."

Shouldn't that be "the opportunity to attend"? I mean it'd be in the time traveller's past (i.e. before their native time) but in subjective time, it would be the future. I think. 80.193.211.68 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conditional future past tense doesn't exist in most current langauges, so it's hard to say what the appropriate term would be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]