This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Time Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

I see that the last AFD resulted in "keep", but I think that was a mistake. The arguments pro-keep are very unconvincing: this is a classic example of a dictionary definition. There isn't an encyclopedic topic to be had, and two of the references are original research where a random English word being used and taken out of context here. (The first reference is mostly used as a high falutin dictionary definition, the part about "temporal construct of the relative future".) At risk of re-litigating the AFD, is there a plan for this article? What would it look like if more sources were found? The bit about child psychology is irrelevant to what I'd think the topic is about - that'd be more for a child development article, not a tomorrow article, and presentism is a philosophy topic, not a "tomorrow" topic. Is there anything else that "should" be in the article? Because all of its current content is highly questionable... SnowFire (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find a tentative link to uncertainty and nothing else. I'm happy with this becoming a redirect. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raising this issue again. Laurdecl recreated the article, but there's just no content to be had here, same as the "Yesterday" article. I'd be in favor of another shot at redirecting, or going to WP:AFD at worst. Anyone still watching this page and have any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is there a better official definition other than midnight? which sucks, btw 00:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregox (talk • contribs)