Talk:Tomorrow

Vote for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 30 to July 7 2004. Consensus was to keep as a disambig page. Discussion:

• keep: but extend

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neutrality 14:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Don't redirect to Wiktionary, either; it's a tautological definition. Geogre 17:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Has potential as a song, like Yesterday, rewrite as such, but otherwise delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Silverchair's first ever song (well, first one that I am aware of) was called Tomorrow. So there is at least one item that is not a dicdef that this article would fit. In the meantime, I don't know what is wrong with keeping the existing list. But whatever the final decision for this page, it shuold be made a standard policy for similar pages. --Chuq 06:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- pne 12:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Damn! It has become a topic repository now. Maybe redirect to List of Tomorrow-related topics. Jay 16:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Move to list of some kind, be it List of tomorrow-related topics or List of things called Tomorrow or what have you. Also, has it become passe to actually put the VfD tag on things? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• How about Tomorrow (disambiguation)? RickK 06:30, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • "List of Z-related topics" is a superset of "Z (disambiguation)". Disambiguation is when multiple pages could have the title Z but they are named different as they need some means to be distinguished. Related topical list is which lists all topics in Wikipedia that are related to Z in some way. Jay 14:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, when Neutrality listed it, and when I voted, the content was "Tomorrow is the day after today." Keep now, although I don't know the proper nomenclature. Geogre 16:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful non-dictionary reference information contained - very useful. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 16:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Try removing the useless info

• Try removing the useless info in the article Trevor 16:00, Aug 10, 2006
  • The 4th and 5th paragraphs in this article are totally useless and uninformative. In fact, they are a waste of the time spent reading it, and difficult to read at all. The 'tomorrow's today is today's tomorrow is the day before...etc' part is almost painful to read and doesn't provide any useful information other than proving that repetition is just plain irritating.
  • Should definately be replaced with something simple such as "Tomorrow is the day after today, therefore Yesterday's tomorrow would be today." No more than that or else it becomes confusing, annoying and repels any interest at all.
    • Well, here's how it read as of July 18: "Yesterday's tomorrow is simply today, and the day before yesterday's tomorrow is yesterday's today. Tomorrow's tomorrow is today's day after tomorrow, and today's tomorrow is tomorrow's today." Is that really any more useful? --Mr2001 01:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I love this article. 216.178.50.49 15:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Mr_McBeanEggHeadMan3094957867

Someone deleted the two paragraphs in question as a "minor edit" without explanation. I've reverted that edit, not because I'm attached to the paragraphs (although apparently someone loves them) but because that seems like an abuse of the minor flag. --Mr2001 06:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally felt that the section reading "Yesterday's tomorrow is simply today, and the day before yesterday's tomorrow is yesterday's today. Tomorrow's tomorrow is today's day after tomorrow, and today's tomorrow is tomorrow's today. Yesterday's day after tomorrow, tomorrow's day before tomorrow, and today's day before the day after tomorrow are all today's tomorrow, but tomorrow's day before yesterday is yesterday's today. Tomorrow's tomorrow's tomorrow's tomorrow is the day after tomorrow's day after tomorrow, and the day before yesterday's tomorrow is both yesterday and tomorrow's day before yesterday.

Tomorrow is exactly nine days after a week before yesterday. A week from tomorrow, which is sometimes called "tomorrow week", is exactly eight days after today; tomorrow week's tomorrow is one day after that, or five days before two weeks from today. Two days before tomorrow's yesterday is the day before two days ago's tomorrow, perhaps more commonly known as tomorrow's yesterday's yesterday's yesterday's yesterday's tomorrow." was pure genius. However, I also guessed it would be deleted sooner or later, so I emailed it to myself some time ago.

Date posted for tomorrow is wrong

Tomorrow's date would be March 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.193.152 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed.

It says tomorrow is May 2nd, but it's May 2nd today. Yes, I understand that it will vary by time zone, but if it's incorrect anywhere, it needs to be fixed. 74.140.218.179 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) : Still wrong. It is displaying today's date, in BST at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.186.152 (talk)

16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC): as of now, the tomorrow date is correct. The date seems to lag by 16 hours from GMT, suggesting it is in fact today's date in GMT+8.

The page doesn't care what timezone you're in - it displays Australian East Coast Time (any reason to show this time zone, if any at all?) --Danny252 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The date calculation is hopeless, and it would be a bit silly for a Wikipedia entry even if it were correct. Currently out by 2 days UTC, and by 1 day even for Australian East Coast. I vote it should be removed. Reiko-j (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When I arrived at this page the first thing I noticed was the incorrect date, which was instead showing today's date. I added some links, and now, a few hours later, it is correct. However this does nothing for wikipedia's authority. I've been a bit bolder than Reiko-j and deleted it. If editors have been noticing this inaccuracy for nearly a year and no-one can fix it, it must be time to say goodbye. Additionally, the whole concept of telling the user what tomorrow's date is doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Is there a wp page telling me the name of the next month, or the time one hour from now? My final point is gained from the edit page - "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". An incorrect date is not verifiable. --Bigger digger (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Date posted maintains previous time

It keeps the date from the last update. Is there a way this can be coded so it's not kept in a cache and reloads every time the page is loaded?

I just found out saving it with no changes does not show in the edit history page, but does update the date.

Also, holding down the Shift key while clicking the reload/refresh button on your browser's toolbar will clear the cache and load the newest version of the page.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not cached on my end - it's cached server side! 80.2.61.232 (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"At the Prime Meridian, tomorrow's date is February 16, 2010 (UTC)." As it is 19th today, this is clearly very very wrong (refresh doesn't help) -> deleting. --85.207.165.26 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would never come ...

Why is everyone so keen to delete things from Wikipedia - get with the program, Wikipedia does not need to be limited by conventional thinking, it's boundless, stop imposing limits when no limits are required :O) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.200.116 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yesterday (time) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)