RationalWiki talk:Predictions/Archive1

Thought
Thought I'd throw this out, see if people posted a few and were interested. 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this, even if nobody likes my predictions (: 05:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Layout....
Can we have this thing so the new stuff is at the top? P-Foster (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oldham and Saddleworth
Here's the result


 * Oh... so I win. What happens now? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * CAKE!!! [[file:birthday cake.svg | 80px]] ThunderkatzHo! 02:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"The 2012 Republican nomination will go to a woman."
Who's laughing now?

She hasn't got a chance, but still. 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Result
Erm, if it's massively downvoted, and doesn't happen, is it still wrong? I mean, the down vote says "RW thinks this won't happen". So we were actually right. Then again, if someone said "in the year 2019, Vladimir Putin will fart and the subsequent explosion will propel the first Chinese spacecraft into orbit around Venus" and it was down voted and didn't happen, that doesn't really say much, does it? ADK ...I'll deport your league! 00:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A date-by would be good for some of these. Also, true predictions that were rather canny are thumbed up, and obvious ones are thumbed down.  Humor is also a factor.--  00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that it's the actual proposed bet that turns out right or wrong. 03:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This page could use some cleanup/steamy hot lovin'
Given that some of these predictions have already been confirmed wrong (Female candidate, Rick Perry, etc)...plus some new ones could be added. I'm not certain I trust myself to move things from current to archive without fucking things up/taking a long time doing it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and try :} Тy Complaints 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

At least word these things sensibly!
How on earth can this be a bet: You can't make a bet on something like "the foreseeable future" - when does it end? How would you establish when you have been proved right or wrong? Even "several decades" doesn't work. How long is that? And are we really going to be around in fifty years to make the call? And what's with the editorialising at the end? As a bet it's just silly!--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Religious belief especially Christianity will continue to decline in advanced industrial countries for the forseeable future and for several decades at least. Scientific opinion polls can give a good indication whether this happens but there are problems. (By Proxima)
 * It's by Proxima. She's... special.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope we're patrolling her posts. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've amended the bet. This regular patrolling is helping improve my thinking. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As it is worded it is still far to vague. You have not sufficiently defined "foreseeable future", "religious belief" "advanced industrial countries" or "measurable change". Why not try:
 * "The percentage of self-identified athiests in country X will rise from level A to level B by date Y as measured by polling organisation Z."
 * That would be completely measurable and would leave no room for doubt as to whether the prediction had come true or not.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you are going to criticize badly worded ones then:

Governor Shumlin will eventually abandon his efforts to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

When does "eventually" end?--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 08:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when does his term end? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. If it said "before his current term in office expires" or even better "by nnnn" it would be better, no? And will he give up when his term ends?--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 13:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And look at this new one:
 * Tim Tebow will never start a game for the New York Jets.
 * Presumably we will have to wait until Tim Tebow's death to know if the prediction was a good one! Because, well, you never know.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 13:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You got me. "Tim Tebow's NFL career will end before he starts a game for the NY Jets." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it better if I clarify, or remove this and make a new prediction? I meant that he either gives up, or is voted out before he succeeds. --Tweenk (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just clarify when the prediction's supposed to "end" so that whoever changes it in the next couple of years knows if it's still going or not. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Forking RationalWiki
At some point before the end of 2013 a serious attempt by members of the community will be made to fork RW. Please explain what is meant by the term fork.
 * 1) fork
 * 2) fork Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to top up the meter on your brain cell. Google wiki fork and all shall be revealed. Please don't complain that "wiki fork" should have ben stated in the original prediction - PeterL must have assumed that the sort of people who read project space articles would have a smidgeon of tech savvy. Sophie  Wilder  10:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

More predictions
At some future point The Archbishops of Canterbury and York get married.

The Pope divorces her husband.

Nick Clegg does not become Prime Minister.

Several new and bizarre 'end of the world predictions' are made. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Since we are predicting what is going on...
Should we work to get this to the WIGO Bar? User:K61824User_talk:K61824 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Naah, I think this page is just a bit of fun among ourselves. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind making it a bit more visible; the only way you can access it is through the Prediction article. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul
What the fuck? Those might the most facepalm-worthy predictions seen here so far. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Goats will fly before Rand Paul becomes the POTUS. Tielec01 (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the prediction is too damn long. The more you put in, the more conditions you have to satisfy or else be wrong.  I mean, I might have upvoted if it were just "Paul gets the nomination," but the odds of that whole thing coming true are virtually nil.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I need to put a winking smiley after those? Sheesh, the old RW really is gone for good. Secret Squirrel (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We've always kept this page serious. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reformat
This page would work better with one or perhaps two additional columns. One to be filed in by the proposer which includes a specific date or very clear point by which their prediction will come true and a second which gives the date at which their prediction was adjudged true or false.

This would have a couple of impacts: 1. It would force proposers to enter a specific time for judgement in respect of their predictions. 2. It would enable others to easily see how good the proposers were. At the moment I can see when a bet was made and I can see it was true or false but it's not always easy t work out how much time passed between the bet being made and the person being right. this could simply be added to the Right or wrong column I suppose.--Coffee (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to just add a column for the date it ended in Results. You can't stamp a date on "Marijuana will be legalized in two or more additional US states (WA and CO don't count) before it is legalized anywhere in Canada," but at least there's a general idea. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dems retaking the House in 2014
As much as I'd love to see that happen (which is very much), I just don't think it's plausible. The districts have been gerrymandered to hell and back. There are some districts that are so safely red, you could run an orangutan and it would win as long as it had an R by its name on the ballot. That's why this whole shutdown debacle has taken place: in areas where the only competition is between right and far right, far right has won. I don't see how there's anything Democrats can do to get the House before 2022. Wehpudicabok  [話]   [変]  07:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see the Democrats winning the House until 2040.
 * Hear me out: by 2040, Millenials will be hitting their fifties, which, if the Baby Boomers are a model for political involvement, will be when they actually start voting in significant numbers and influencing politics.  Rich conservative fuckers like the Waltons and the Kochs will still be conservative fuckers, but will no longer be able to rely on buying the social conservative vote to secure support for their own deregulation and privatization schemes — they'll have to sell those policies on their own terms, which is actually pretty hard to do (for the most part, Americans like clean air and water, public schools, Social Security, and safe consumer products).  Furthermore, past Republican gerrymandering efforts focused on maintaining existing seats will unintentionally bake in a major demographic shift in terms of race and cultural values — when traditionally Republican districts finally fall, they'll all fall, kneecapping Republicans for a generation.
 * But until then, no, I don't see Democrats taking the House.  08:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it constitutionally possible to get a level of electoral reform via state-level referendum? Like make house, senate and electoral college votes in your state use STV? You're in serious need of that kind of thing, though it wouldn't be nearly enough. Peter mqzp 08:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would probably take a Supreme Court case to find out.  09:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I thought my assessment was pessimistic. If the GOP controls the House that long I will actually leave the US.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If polling says something, the further the fiscal cliff gets kicked down the less the Republican party will be relevant. Remember that we're dealing with only 30 seats. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We know all know it hasn't happened (and my current prediction says it won't happen in 2016 either), but what if a state (say California, they always have wacky vaguely European ideas) decides to allot its representatives through proportional representation? Would that fly with the SCOTUS (Let's say a SCOTUS Bernie Sanders has had the chance to nominate a replacement for Scalia and Kennedy to) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IF this is constitutional (and it could probably fly as pursuant to the teeth of the 14th Amendment), then no. 01:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * However, that is a strictly statutory requirement, so it could of course be repealed by a future Congress - and if it is a valid exercise of powers delegated to the Congress, a requirement for PR would presumably be also. 01:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be one interesting SCOTUS case to be sure... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to leave this here. 01:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Win/fail - should we keep separate scores for the prediction giver and the crowd's opinion on the prediction?
As topic. User:K61824User_talk:K61824 04:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what the voting is supposed to mean as is. Peter mqzp 05:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The page read somewhere that vote up if you agree and vote down if you disagree, I believe. User:K61824User_talk:K61824 22:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage prediction
It's not done yet. The prediction specified "by federal judges". The Arkansas ruling was by a state judge. Compro01 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And now it is done, with Idaho's ban getting knocked down by a federal judge. Compro01 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should remove undated predictions.
If a prediction does not indicate a time by which the situation will have have happened (or not happened) it should be removed. Examples include:


 * RationalWiki will not fork because of gender/sexuality topics.

How will we ever know if this negative prediction is correct? It's impossible.


 * The question of the health effects of obesity will replace the question of the health effects of GMOs as the hot-button content-driven debate on the wiki.

Again - when? It's a crap predication. It can stay up for ever. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for either seems to have passed. I also nominate proxy's random "existing trendss will continue" predictions-- Mie kal  23:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Independence
Has not been achieved. How do we mark the prediction as correct?Serocco (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Worthless prediction
I see that an IP has added the prediction: "A small nation in Europe will undergo a major political revolution in the next decade."

It seems to me that this is akin to a fortune teller saying "You will meet a tall dark stranger."

As a prediction it's worthless.--Coffee (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, being vague is the trick to fortunetelling. ;)
 * I'll make it more specific and change it to "Western Europe" if you prefer, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should specify the size of "small". Every country is "small" compared to the US or Russia.  And what is a "political revolution"? Does it involve the violent armed overthrow of the government or just an election with a surprising result?
 * Without specifying things like this it's so vague it's meaningless.--Coffee (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I added some specifications. Better now? ;)
 * As for "political revolution", I'm referring to a major change in how the nation's government will operate, e.g. a shift from democracy to fascism, or a shift from representational democracy to direct democracy. Whether it comes about through a violent overthrow, peaceful protests or normal elections doesn't matter. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you also need to specify this in the bet. As it stands its still vague - and this talk page will be well and truly archived after ten years. (Though I'm impressed by your faith in the long-term existence of RW and this bets page.)--Coffee (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

HCM?
You mean Hindustani classical music maybe? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say:
Why do we have both Hilary Clinton will be elected president in 2016 and Hillary Clinton will not be elected president in 2016, and how can they both be positive votes? Ikanreed (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because different people made the predictions and people voted different ways. We are a mobocracy, not a hivemind. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Lib dems.
Can we accept that my 2010 prediction, "The Lib Dems will be almost wiped out as a political force in the next UK election." was mostly correct? --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. 8 seats is almost nothing. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough to play musical chairs, which represents the extreme maximum of how seriously they'll be taken. 131.204.254.105 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Yes, an American horse absolutely won the Triple Crown in the next five years since that prediction was made. So shouldn't it be Wrong, not right? Serocco 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Malaysian airliner
Was "found whole" meant? Or can I call this one wrong? 01:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been assuming "majority" --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. 01:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to see who voted what?
Is there? If no could it be implemented? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * why would we want that?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, and nobody understands Nx's arcane magicks. 22:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nx? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nx is an ancient user who is responsible for a large number of the mechanical cogs of RW currently in place.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from preventing sockpuppets and bots voting (and generally safeguarding the voting process) I don't at all see any point to disclosing votes, other than encouraging self-censorship at the cost of honest representation? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (edot conflict) Ah okay. And as for the desirability... Well I don't care much either way (I was just curious), but it might be interesting in some cases to see who has been right about what in the past. Maybe we could even give out (entirely meaningless) "awards" for being right more often than others or for being wrong more often than others. Or we could just not do it. Or goat. Anyway, I guess we won't get a SCROTUS majority on that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: banning predictions with a "running time" bigger x

 * 1) All predictions shall cite a date by which it has to be decided whether they can be decided "true", unless evident from context
 * 2) This date shall be no further thaen five (5) years in the future of the date of issuance of a proposal
 * 3) The mob shall have all appropriate power to enforce said policy through bans blocks and reverts

What do y'all think about this policy proposal? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a bigger issue is that 11 of the 17 predictions added in the last 10 days belong to you, most in two giant blocks. Slow down buddy, this isn't that serious of a page.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull
Abbott did not win reelection, as predicted, and Turnbull beat him for the leadership, as predicted. Time to change? And should we make an article for Turnbull to dissect just how "liberal" he is? Serocco 00:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Prediction was true, I don't see why you are asking about whether we declare it so.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I dunno how to mark it as true.Serocco 04:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What happened to calling it "Assfly's blog"?
I mean come on... calling that webshite by their self-given name? That's just... Sad... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * we grew up and came up with better terms? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

CURRENT NEW POLL NUMBER. UPDATE WHEN ADDING NEW POLLS
What is the point of that line of instructions? Can't users just see what the next poll number is from the entry below? Why would they also need to update the number in a hidden header? 00:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Using false poll numbers has on occasion occurred... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because polls get moved, rarely in order of addition, meaning that figuring out the poll number can at times be more work than just editing a number when you add a new poll. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like that's because of a recent run of three predictions about the Canadian election which were posted within the two days leading up to it. Aside from that these have generally been  long-term predictions, as per the first line of the page, meaning that there have been months between predictions being posted & moved to 'results' & hence no need for poll numbering to get in a muddle.  00:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is older than that, and is a simpler solution to what will always be an ongoing problem of the last poll number not always being the most recently made poll. It's only an issue when people are to lazy to bother.-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * More likely when they don't notice that they're supposed to be updating the number in two places, which isn't normal process for the other pages using this system like WIGOs & the to do list. 01:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WIGO nevermoves around entries. I find your resistance to a quality of life solution to a issue to be pointless.-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

By January 1, 2020, at least one genetically engineered animal will be approved for human consumption in the United States. - Win?
- and a good 4 years before the deadline, too. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Out of date
Some of those predictions have come true / become impossible already... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've thrown in ending dates for whatever could be discerned. Perhaps that will convince people to fix some of this junk. 16:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So much futile idealism
And no knowledge of the math or pragmatic politics. It was obvious back in 2012 that Clinton would be the next President. It was obvious that the Republicans had no real candidates to field after Romney. It was obvious, when Sanders started his run, that he would fail. It's like no one ever studied American politics or political science. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, mister expert. Did you make all those predictions way back then? If so I'd like to see it. Otherwise shut your face-hole. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Track down my personal blogs, FB, whatever, and have a gander. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are easy predictions, though. The fun is in making predictions that would actually be surprising if they came true. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * I...don't see the fun in that. You make predictions in order to plan the future. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should I? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "It was obvious back in 2012 that Clinton would be the next President" LOL.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the American people did vote for Clinton by a quite handsome margin of over 2 000 000. Of course it does not count for anything, but still. Worzelpete (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * She still should've won in a landslide against that buffoon but I digress.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Moan.
I do wish that people would specific dates rather than things like "within three years". As you can't easily see the date the thing was created it makes it difficult to guess how far through the period we are.

Even worse are undated ones like: "The effects of the EmDrive will be conclusively shown to be a result of experimental error. (I hope I'm wrong.)".

Without a "By X date" the thing could be up till the heat death of the universe. It's like making a prediction "The theory of evolution will be shown to have a fundamental flaw sometime". With no cut-off date it's worthless.

There should be a way to temporarily move these vague ones out.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I at least try to write mine to be falsifiable. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The formatting is in trouble
I can't figure out when in the fossil record it happened, but the results section somehow ended up inside the active predictions table. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the edit in question. And that mysterious assassination prediction used to be less mysterious, apparently. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, patched in the fix. Thanks for finding it.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Who downvoted the DeVos item?
I kinda wanted to pull it for having no end date, thus basically being inevitable in that "A celebrity will die" way, but someone downvoted it, like it's got any chance at all of being wrong. I'm baffled. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is that people are not thinking. Any prediction without an end date is pretty meaningless.
 * While on the subject of meaningless predictions, the prediction "The USA will break up Yugoslavia-style within the next 150-200 years." is pretty pointless too. It might as well have an end date of "sometime after we are all dead". I would suggest that predictions should have a forward limit of, say, 15 years.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A wiki can outlive its users. It's still making a testable prediction.  The Mars One item is similarly far-reaching, for example.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. It might. At least there will be nobody around to say it was the wrong call.
 * And potentially the list might fill up with 200 year plus predictions which will never be purged. In any event, I'm wondering about putting in my predictions about  the second coming of Jesus in 2198; a Martian invasion in 2651 and the end of the world on the 28th of September 2930. :-) --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Maybe we should create Long-term Predictions?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be a better solution. In actual fact it might be interesting to see how the voting goes. Sea level rise - how much by when? Human-like artificial intelligence? Full brain transplants? Collapse of western civilisation? First colony on Mars? FTL drives?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Remind me...
...to sort out this mess tonight. Bicycle wheel  11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore
This is not a long-term prediction so it does not belong on the page, but (despite there being several credible allegations of sexual misconduct against him) I think Roy Moore is going to win the special election on December 12. In fact, I'll be genuinely shocked if it ends up being close, but I hope I'm wrong. CowHouse (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)