Jump to content

Talk:2010/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Olympcics Reference

Reference made to 2012 London Olympics removed because they will be taking place in 2012, not 2010. Replaced by Vancouver 2010 Olympics, also pronounced "twenty-ten," occurring in the discussed year.

-Jackmont, Dec 10, 2006.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.13.41 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

2010 novel and film

Should there be a link here to an article on the novel/film 2010?

--Dante Alighieri 08:50 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yep. Just like with 1984 and 2001. --mav

Conjunction between Jupiter and Uranus, Jupiter 28' south. First conjunction of triple conjunction Jupiter/Uranus. Am I the only one that finds this sentence a bit... awkward?--ShadowMagus 07:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There will be no presidential election in 2010. That statement must be corrected.

I put Poverty Elimination because it's since 1988 that I'm working for poverty elimination in 2010 and I believe that we'll eliminate poverty by 2010. Thank you. Why did you remove? Please, thank you.

apparently you failed. So did that website you mentioned.... perhaps due to being too impoverished to pay the bill? lol too ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.46.110 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting : There will be no presidential election in 2010. That statement must be corrected.

There will be the Philippine Presidential elections. Next time, consider all countries.

Millennium of Human Flight

The following removed:

In 2010 there will be celebrations of the thousandth anniversary of the first historically recorded attempt at human flight. In 1010 Elmer of Malmesbury, a monk, launched himself with parchment wings from an 18-meter tower and glided for some 200 meters before crash-landing and breaking his legs.

The statement about the "first recorded" is false, see Abbas Ibn Firnas. mikka (t) 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fictional 2010 "what-if"s

Are these really appropriate? The following is listed: If it is still in production, the drama series Law & Order will match the record set by Gunsmoke as the longest-running American prime time dramatic series (20 years). Where does the line get drawn? Oldest living people? Most units sold for a video game? I recommend removing the current hypothetical because there are too many arbitrary things that fit the pattern: If X is still Y in 2010, it will match/beat record Z. --Ds13 00:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --Ds13 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation section

Wow, that section is currently an uncited and weasel-worded extravaganza! Let me give some examples:

  • "A perhaps minute dilemma..." (POV?)
  • "Some, feeling comfortable ... will prefer..." (weasel words)
  • "Others are likely to..." (weasel words)
  • "Influence on the current pronunciation ... may have been influenced by..." (weasel words, speculation)
  • "some feel this may influence the general public" (weasel words)
  • "Those opposed ... argue that..." (who? uncited.)
  • "Most, however, agree that..." (who? uncited.)

Is this original research? Since this needs to be encyclopedic, I suggest the contributor(s) of that section rewrite it. I'll help, but I don't personally think very much can be said here about this topic unless previous published articles on it can be cited. --Ds13 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit I rushed the publication of that section and would not have a problem with it being removed altogether, I realize there are no sources. The only sources I could possibly give would be internet forums or personal blogs online by various persons. If this is not sufficiant then I understand the section should be removed. I would appreciate that this issue be covered, however, since it certainly is something that will occur in 2010. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the pronunciation is important and interesting also. And it's not something that will occur in the future; it's already happening right now — we refer to the year "2010" all the time in news and business. Since blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources, reducing this section to a list of variants would remain factual and we don't need to speculate on consensus or introduce any opinions on which one might "win", etc. --Ds13 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll try some rewording, and you can assist of you like. Also, just wondering, did you intentionally post your response at "20:10, 3 May 2006"? I found that quite a coincidence. Anyway, cheers. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Odyssey series

I removed the final sentence from the entry about the Clarke's Odyssey series, because it's seemed unrelated, and it spoiled the ending anyway. (I know spoilers are not reason enough to remove content, but it still seemed irrelevant). I also think the majority of the rest of that entry is pretty irrelevant. I'd like to see it as simply "The (book) by (author) and (movie) by (director) take place in this year." or something similar. Any objections to this? B.Mearns*, KSC 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the same note, I'm changing this bit:
Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2010: Odyssey Two (1984), filmed in the same year as 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is set in 2010.
First off, a novel is written, not filmed. And second, according to it's Wikipedia entry, the novel was published in 1982, not 1984. MyrddinEmrys 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ten in 2010"

Should there be any mention of the Bad Religion song "Ten in 2010" that is about the projected 10 billion people on Earth in 2010?Andrew zot 05:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bicentennials

many countries in latin america will have bicentennial in 2010 it should be mentioned.--201.9.24.233 21:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: This is the list:

Mexico, Colombia, Chile --Beaker35 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been rejected by WP:YEARS for some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

New, encyclopedic & cited "pronunciation" section

I have added a new (rather lengthy) section on the pronunciation issues with 21st century years to this article, and would appreciate comments on it here. Any fixes you feel are needed, feel free to change them in the article. But please, do join me in conversation here prior to fully reverting. Thank you for co-operation. -- Sarcha 45 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an interesting decision to put it at the top. I actually went right to the bottom of the page just now to check something, because sections like this always wind up at the bottom of the page. Since it's the most interesting part of the article and most unique to the year 2010, I agree it belongs at the top.
At any rate, since there have been no responses here after all this time I just wanted to say I think the section is excellent. A considerable amount of information that could have been dull or seemed pointless, and you actually made it kind of fun.
Has anything serious been written of the fact that, in conversation, when we attach a word to the end of "twenty-" it's almost always the second digit? When I think of "twenty-eleven," for a brief moment eleven becomes the compressed second digit of a two digit number. For this reason I wonder if it might be 2020 or 2021 before the pronunciation changes in casual conversation.
--einexile 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Just one anecdotal note about pronunciation. I caught myself without thinking about it saying two-thousand-nine and twenty-ten today. It will be interesting to see what people call this year... Madlobster (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

The article lists both STS-132 and STS-133 as being the last shuttle flight - which is it? Eran of Arcadia 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

cateracts

I restored the article about cateracts delated by the pervious user because it came from an article of popular science which is a reliable source. The person who delated the article does not explain why it may not be notible. The source is verifed by popular science and is not an ad. So please do not erease articles about upcoming technologes without offering an explaination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.216.95 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not convincing as to the content of the article/ad. It needs an article name and page numbers, at the least, but I doubt the notability, even so. The place to start would in the article on cateracts (I don't have a spell-checker here, either), as you only quoted the company's press release there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WTC Freedom Tower...

I don't think the freedom tower is to be completed by 2010. There is a large banner hanging on an adjacent building at ground zero in Manhattan that says "World Trade Center 2012" with a model of what it will look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.64.50 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Denmark and the euro

Denmark is not set to join the euro in 2010. Where do you get this from? The Danish government aims to hold a referendum (which is mandatory according to constitutional law) on abolishing this very opt-out in it's current reigning term that lasts until 2011. But no date for the referendum is made, and the last two times it turned out a 'no'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.22.222 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Croatia and the European Union

From Unknown dates - "Croatia will join the European Union."
From Accession of Croatia to the European Union - "Croatia is expected to finally join in 2010[1]."

So, which one is it? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also found a third reference to it:
"January 1 - Croatia is set to join the European Union."

So, which one is it - January 1st, sometime in 2010, or only expected to join? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

2010 the tenth year of the 00s?

Shouldn't the year 2010 be a part of the 00s and not the 2010s? Since you start counting from one January 1, 2001 (the beginning of the first year of the 00s), that would make 2009 the ninth year of the decade and not the tenth. There fore year 2010 is the tenth year of the 00s and not the first year of the 10s. Emperor of Fatalism 12:05 P.M 25/07/08—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.117.185 (talk • contribs)

Although you are correct that the Christian Era does not have a year zero, and that subsequently the 21st century began in 2001, the same is generally not applied to decades. The 1990s comprise of the years 1990–1999, and etcetera. Not sure of where this rule is written in stone, but it's certainly accepted. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 04:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unknown dates (proposed Lemesurier entry)

Now now! -- no need to get shirty, Arthur! I've only reverted four or five times, each time with a perfectly reasonable explanation, and then only in response to obviously unreasonable accusations.

Before agreeing to drop the proposed insert, I should simply like to see adequate reasons for doing so. So far there haven't been any, nor have you discussed the topic here. 'Speculative'? -- no, it's a factual report of a statement in published books. 'Not notable?' -- a correct forecast made 32 years in advance is, I would have thought, almost unheard of, and certainly notable. 'Advertising?' - the books are long since out of print, and the author doesn't benefit from second-hand sales either. Besides, the fact that an author refers to his own works isn't an infringement of Wiki rules. Surely there must be some better reason? Is it merely the fact that *I* have posted it, rather than somebody else? In which case there doesn't seem to be any reason for your own reversions (or BelleEquipe's either) under Wiki's rubric. --PL (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. The books in question do not have sufficient information given to locate them. Please use {{cite book}}, and include at least a publisher and ISBN. If they are self-published or essentially self-published, they certainly require an independent reference for notability. The only "Element Publishing" I can find is an Australian self-publisher.
  2. Even if the books were published, why does a followup to a false prediction (you said, "begins in 2007", when most observers agree the crisis began in 2008, with causes beginning much earlier) deserve credit.
  3. Even if the book or author were notable, how many other predictions were made in the book? How many were clearly false? How many were clearly false when made?
No, please don't add until you can resolve these issues; your resolution of those issues will effect which other Wikipedia policies and guidelines the addition violates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1.If the piece violates Wikipedia rules and guidelines, then you yourself have violated them repeatedly by reposting it.

2. Publisher: Element Books. Dates, 1977 and 1987 (this may explain why you can't find the publisher, which no longer exists, except as an imprint of HarperCollins).

3. ISBNs: various for various editions, but among them 1-85230-861-3 (UK) or 1-85230-793-5 (US) and 1-85230-016-7 respectively.

4. The paragraph is not claiming credit: it merely reports what the books said. You seem to be 'stuck' on the idea that the insert is a piece of self-promotion forbidden by Wikipedia, instead of a simple academic reference. The period stipulated does fit the current period (correct to within one year at a distance of 32), the year 2010 was mentioned, and the term 'Big Crunch' was used of it.

5. No claims are made in the paragraph regarding the many other predictions made in the book, most of which are subsequent to the present. The question is therefore irrelevant.

6. Notability: the first book (The Great Pyramid Decoded) sold around a quarter of a million copies worldwide in umpteen languages (the publisher claimed a lot more), and is well-known to almost everybody (except you, apparently).

I realise that you might not like the idea that any book successfully predicted things so far in advance, but to justify repeatedly deleting the relevant paragraph you really ought to find some much more cogent reason. I would be quite happy if you can find one. Do you mean to say that you can't? --PL (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiBlame seems to indicate it added by you at 09:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) and was present until deleted by Trivialist (talk · contribs) at 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC). It hadn't been present before then as far back as 24 August 2008, and I don't recall adding it. If you have other evidence, I'd appreciate links.
I've invited Trivialist to comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As for "1 year out of 32", that would require moving the prediction to 2010s, rather than leaving it at 2010. Also, evidence that the term "Big Crunch" was used by anyone other than you (I mean, the author) would be required for that statement to be notable.
We might as well add all the interpretations (which have an specific year) of Nostradamus's predictions to the appropriate year article. I'd be against that, as well, but lets be real. Any of those are more notable than this author's predictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If, indeed, your book is so notable, then it would be best to wait and let someone else write about your prediction, instead of you quoting yourself. Trivialist (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009

(UTC)Undoubtedly it would be preferable, but there's nothing in Wiki rules to forbid it. This article is about submitting autobiographies, not referencing one's own books (kindly stop misapplying Wiki regulations to defend your own personal points!). Not too many others remember the prediction any more: even the publisher had forgotten it, though others are now jumping on the bandwagon in response.

The fact that the book specifically mentions 2010 as the bottom of the Crunch is of course the reason for mentioning it here (whether or not it happens to be a flash in the pan!). As for evidence that somebody else was applying the term to the period in question at the time, that is something for you and others to supply, if you are able to, not me.

Nostradamus never mentioned either the year 2008 or the year 2010, though it would be relevant to include the fact if he had. The last date he mentioned was 1999: the next is 3797. -PL (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nostradamus never mentioned any year; I'm talking about years the interpreters of his works translate them (the works) as meaning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, that could be any years you (or rather they) like! ;) --

Later: At last an honest reason, Belle Equipe -- though I can think of better! I'm not sure how valid it is under the terms of Wiki, though. I mean, we could just go on batting it to and fro, given that there's absolutely no technical Wikireason why it shouldn't be there. The only drawback would be that there are three or you (since I assume that Arthur doesn't really want the version that he proposed, given that he's just agin it) to one of me. Is that democracy, or gang culture (or are both the same?) --PL (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not given any reason the material should be included. It is a prediction, but not a notable one. It appears I was wrong to make any comments about previous predictions made in the books; they aren't really relevant. The question of why this prediction is relevant to anything is still unanswered. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

I think the real point is that it was a category error. While it was a factual report relevant to 2010 and, I suspect, rather more notable than you seem to believe, it referred to a conjectural forecast, whereas the other reports are of a more 'rational' nature. I imagine it was this that originally drew your attention to it -- quite rightly, possibly. End of dispute? --PL (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Boy scouts

See, for example WP:Recent years and WT:YEARS , but anniversaries are not listed unless there is a specific, sourced, present plan for a notable celebration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

December 2010

I'm curious as to where there isn't any section here about December 2010. Is there a special reason for that? All the other months are documented on here. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

British events

There are 2 British events which I have added which someone has objected to. It is true that WP:Recent years creates quite a high threshhold to be passed. However this is surely because such articles can easily become over-long, the same threshhold does not apply to future years or years further back. If we exclude events of only national importance then presumably we would have to cut out the censuses in several countries, and the US mid-term elections. The trial of Tommy Sheridan and Gail Sheridan (politician) is quite an important event, a former Member of the Scottish Parliament facing serious charges of perjury etc., see Sheridan v News International, it may well achieve international prominence. The Next UK general election is also important, particularly since it is now less than a year away, it is not speculation but a statement of fact to say what the last possible date is, I never said it would take place on that date. PatGallacher (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep them here. I'm not sure the trial would even be notable in "... in the UK", and the last possible date doesn't even seem notable in "... in elections", although possibly in the UK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Heisei 22

It is not sure that 2010 will be part of the Heisei Period --82.134.154.25 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is in the template. Please discuss at Template talk:Year in other calendars. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vagueness? ...

Uh, I found two things I'm unsure of in the article.

1. "The Space Shuttle will retire."

What does that mean ...? It just says "space shuttle will retire," it doesn't say what it means, and thus confuses the living hell out of me. Are they saying a new method of travel from Earth to space is being developed, or do they mean some trivial thing that I don't know about? Could someone clear this up . . . ?

NASA have announced that the last Space Shuttle flight is scheduled for late 2010. The fleet of Shuttles will then be retired. NASA are developing a replacement for the Shuttle which will enter service about 2015. Until then, NASA will use Russian launch vehicles.
To add to that, I believe that in addition to Russian launch vehicles, SpaceX will also be providing launch vehicles.

2. "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope may be deorbited by 2010."

Why? Are there plans for some new telescope, or have Scientists decided they've gotten bored of studying planets ...? If the article on "Space Shuttle," and "Hubble Space Telescope," expand on this, excuse me. But shouldn't it also expand on them -in the article-?

The HST was designed to be regularly serviced by the Space Shuttle - there is no alternative method to replace consumables on the HST. With the retirement of the Shuttle fleet, NASA can no longer supply the HST. It will therefore be decommissioned and 'de-orbited' in a controlled fashion (so it crashes somewhere uninhabited) before it runs out of propellant. A number of replacement telescopes are being designed or built. Advances in adaptive optics means that the next generation of ground-based telescopes will provide images of comparable quality to the HST.
This article can't provide an in-depth description of everything that is expected to happen in 2010 - a one-sentence overview with a link to the relevant article is more reasonable. --PeterJeremy (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Madlobster (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just confused. =\ 12.107.247.126 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Leap Year

I didn't remove it because I don't really have time to edit right now....2010 is NOT a leap year. MplsNarco (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The year is not always a leap year, as according this, it is not WP:CHAT. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

There has been revised editing about Mexico's Time Zone, Mexico is not geographically part of Central America region. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 06:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being mentioned Mexico is literally a part of Central America due to UN membership. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 07:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2010s

"and the 1st of the 2010s decade" - WTF? 1, 2... 10 -> 10 is the 10th (last) number of the first tenth 11 is the first number of the next tenth 2000 is the last year of the XX century 2001 is the first year of the XXI century the 1st year of the 2010 decade would be 2011!!! Didn't you go to school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.155.95 (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I did go to school, and it was in roughly the seventh grade that I learned the differences among cardinal, ordinal, and nominal numbers. These differences are relevant here, as explained in WP:RY. In a nutshell, 2010 is the first year of the 2010s decade for the same reason that a thirteen-year-old is in the first year of their teens. This is the same reason why a 20-year old (rather than a 21-year-old) is in the first year of their 20s. The fact that nobody celebrates a "0th" birthday is irrelevant. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte, nicely put. In addition to going to school, it appears you also retained what you learned. 83.10.155.95, please see WP:CIVIL before your next comment on the matter. My best to you both... ttonyb (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Mission

I've removed the reference to NASA's Dawn space probe because it is not now due to arrive until October 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.13.41 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup

In a web page "2010 Cup Coza|Welcoming the 2010 World Cup to South Africa" appears a countdown to the openning day. According this countdown the date of the first match of the event that will be the nineteenth edition of the event will be June 11, 2010. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elthon73 (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Homerjay90

I'm rather tired of reverting this person's edits, and rather tired in general; so although I'll be sleeping shortly, I would suggest that there might be an WP:ANI- or WP:AN3-worthy issue here and, if so, would not object to some administrative intervention if his consensus-defying acts continue. Several editors have been extremely civil and patient with him, attempting to communicate directly with him on his talk page. None of this has changed his conduct, which strikes me as disruptive to the articles and as detrimental to the collaborative atmosphere that WP is supposed to have. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Frustration understood. Also understand exhaustion. But the link you gave, User:Homerjay90, if you click on it, indicates that administrative action is already pending. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the sockpuppety investigation has been pending for a while and he has continued to use the accounts. BTW - sleep well, Cosmic Latte and have a great 2010. ttonyb (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess the user will be block soon after continuing disruptive editing in year articles. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
He's continuing edit war again and he may assumed ownership in years articles. I'll report this on WP:AN3 as Cosmic Latte stated above. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Homerjay90 for sockpuppet investigation. ttonyb (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind wishes, Ttonyb. I hope 2010 goes well for you too! Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2010#Pronouncing 2010 and subsequent years

This section has become far too large for such a trivial topic. There is a link to the 2010s article, a single paragraph detailing the main points should be sufficient here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I trimmed a lot of it earlier but it looks like it was re-added, we should not try to re-write the 2010s article here.
I am not even 100% sure that the section should be there in the first place. FFMG (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've retrimmed it. It is a trivial topic, and we don't need a full copy in this article. A link to the 2010s article is enough. Voortle (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Missions

Either we are going to put all planned Space Shuttle mission in this article or not. These are the dates from NASA.GOV:

Date: Feb. 7 + Mission: STS-130 Launch Vehicle: Space Shuttle Endeavour Launch Site: Kennedy Space Center - Launch Pad 39A Launch Time: 4:39 a.m. EST Description: Space shuttle Endeavour will deliver the final connecting node, Tranquility Node 3, and the Cupola, a robotic control station with six windows around its sides and another in the center that provides a 360-degree view around the International Space Station.

Date: March 18 + Mission: STS-131 Launch Vehicle: Space Shuttle Discovery Launch Site: Kennedy Space Center - Launch Pad 39A Launch Time: 1:34 p.m. EDT Description: Space shuttle Discovery will carry a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module filled with science racks that will be transferred to laboratories of the International Space Station.

Date: May 14 + Mission: STS-132 Launch Vehicle: Space Shuttle Atlantis Launch Site: Kennedy Space Center - Launch Pad 39A Launch Time: 2:28 p.m. EDT Description: Space shuttle Atlantis mission will carry an integrated cargo carrier to deliver maintenance and assembly hardware, including spare parts for space station systems. In addition, the second in a series of new pressurized components for Russia, a Mini Research Module, will be permanently attached to the bottom port of the Zarya module.

Date: July 29 + Mission: STS-134 Launch Vehicle: Space Shuttle Endeavour Launch Site: Kennedy Space Center - Launch Pad 39A Launch Time: 7:51 a.m. EDT STS-134 Description: Space shuttle Endeavour will deliver an EXPRESS Logistics Carrier-3 (ELC-3) and an Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) to the International Space Station.

Date: Sept. 16 + Mission: STS-133 Launch Vehicle: Space Shuttle Discovery Launch Site: Kennedy Space Center - Launch Pad 39A Launch Time: 11:57 a.m. EDT STS-133 Description: Space shuttle Discovery will deliver the Express Logistics Carrier 4 (ELC4), a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MLPM) and critical spare components to the International Space Station.

However, several have been removed. Why? user:mnw2000 21:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As with previous years they have been removed because they are not particularly notable. The fact that there are some many of them should make this obvious. The only exception might be the last shuttle flight. Shuttle flights belong in Years in spaceflight but the vast majority of them are insufficiently notable for Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see your view that every shuttle mission is not a notable event, except that these five are the last five. Therefore, the last three are the LAST mission of each orbiter. Isn't that notable? user:mnw2000 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I see why the last flight bit is important. But the info is covered in 2010 in spaceflight. Structurally, it's covered in this article using the See also section. I could buy the argument that one sentence might be added to the top of the section Predicted and scheduled events stating something like "Many space shuttle orbiters will fly for the last time this year. See 2010 in spaceflight." Something along those lines. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The final flight of the Space Shuttle program is siginificant, the final flight of each individual space shuttle is not (for this article). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Need an edit

2010 is also the International Year of Youth per http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33303&Cr=youth&Cr1= it should be added.--128.54.237.250 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough there isn't/wasn't an article for the International Year of Youth, I'll just create an article for it hopefully you can help in improving it. FFMG (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Requesting Stand on Zanzibar be added to the In fiction section.Wurmsrus (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Y2010 Computer problems

I recommend to the editors to add a section on the "Y2010 Problem". A number of popular computer software packages have encountered date problems transitioning from 2009 to 2010. This is interesting because 2010 is not epochal, not a leap year, etc. Links: SANS.org The Register --Ericfitz1 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It would need a specific article of its own first before it could considered for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Death entry length

Am I the only one who finds this line distracting? I've tried things like "Japanese World War II figure" and "Japanese World War II survivor", but apparently even the latter is "too vague". I'm not sure how "World War II survivor" is any more vague (it even strikes me as more specific) than "actor" or "musician" or "astronaut" or any of the other nice and brief descriptors that the deaths sections use. We don't need to specify precisely which two bombings of WWII this man survived, any more than we need to state which two films an actor won an Oscar for. Honestly, I have reservations about even including this person in the article. Yes, he has enough non-English articles, but the trend in 2009 was to exclude those whose notability stems most directly from chance factors (e.g., age). But if he's going to be included, I certainly don't think his entry should be taking up half the page width--it's inelegant and disproportionately long and detailed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As you say his notability is due to chance, which puts him in the same category as oldest people, military veterans and titanic survivors, all of whom have been excluded. Appearing in a film screened before the United Nations and being the possible subject of a film isn't really sufficiently notable. I'd tend toward exclusion, if that isn't the consensus then at the very least his entry should be no more tahn "Japanese atomic bomb survivor". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There will be thousands of people who can lay to the claim of world's oldest person as time goes on. There is only one person who is confirmed to have survived both atomic bombings meanwhile. Yamaguchi easily passes the 9 mark as well. There is no question that he was internationally notable because of his once in a lifetime circumstances. As for the description, "Japanese World War II survivor" just sounds ridiculous since over 70 million Japanese survived the war, while "Japanese World War II figure" is also too vague. The current description is better, but I don't see a problem with "Japanese survivor of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings". It really isn't that long and since it is more difficult to define this person than the rest, we should be allowed to use more room to describe what he was. --Tocino 19:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am on the fence on that one, while I agree that he was the only one recognised to have survived both bombings and he was very old, he, himself, did nothing, (until 2009), he was only at the wrong place at the right time, that's all.
Having said that, if we are going to keep the entry we must add the only thing he was know for, been the only person to have survived both bombings. FFMG (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm on the fence too, although his late-life activities nudge me slightly towards inclusion. If he does stay in the article, then how about calling him a "Japanese dual atomic bomb survivor"? This could cut down on the undue weight that he'd probably be given if his entry were to extend substantially beyond those of Nobel Prize winners and heads of state. At the same time, this would be reasonably specific, as there is only one pair of atomic bombings that one notably could have survived. Besides, if the words "dual" and "Japanese" don't give the reader a clue, then specifications like "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki" probably won't explain much to the reader, either, and the reader would be well-advised simply to follow the wikilinks. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake

At present there is not even an approximate death toll for this event, although some reports say a "huge" toll is expected. The current guideline at Wikipedia:Recent years for such events is: "Disasters of a global or near-global significance may be added. The importance of these disasters can be demonstrated through various international news sources. High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article." I have previously suggested, more than once, that minimum death tolls for single nation/multi-nation disasters be given as a guideline for inclusion but this did not gain support. Therefore, under the present guideline, the Haiti earthquake does not merit inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the earthquake already meets criteria by this: "the importance of these disasters can be demonstrated through various international new sources.", considering pretty much all major news organizations, CNN, BBC, Xinhua, France 24, Al-Jazeera etc... are already going into mass sensationalism on this story, without a death toll being reported, (albeit because everyone knows it's going to be huge) that it has already met the criteria. If you don't agree with just news coverage on the article than you can also look at the international reactions and pledges by the United States and Canada. Which certainly makes this an "international" relief effort in scope, which certainly brings a nature of "international" importance to the earthquake. Just my two cents, because by tomorrow it will be on this page regardless as soon as the casualty figures begin flooding in. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If does meet the criteria, please add and provide reliable sources for the year's disaster. Here, there was an earthquake had a magnitude of 5 in my country. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're trying to say Apprentice. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources, huh? Well, I won't link too many specifically... but Google News has over 2,000 articles[2], from such international papers as the NYT [3], the BBC [4], and the Times of India [5]. Enough?theBOBbobato (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The earthquake in itself is not really notable, there has been many 7.0 earthquakes and this is not really a first or deadliest so far, (in the world or in the area).
And because only one country seems to have been overwhelmingly affected by it would point to 2010 in Haiti.
Having said that, the number of casualties might make it notable. But. as we are not a newspaper, I would suggest waiting a couple of days until we have more information on this tragedy. FFMG (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::It is a question of scale. While this earthquake is the largest (by magnitude and/or loss of life) in the area since 1692 it is not uncommonly large by world standards. There have been 20 earthquakes with death tolls well over 100 in the last 10 years, so a death toll under 100 would not be particularly notable. The L'Aquiila earthquake in Italy in 2009 is included (though that was debated) with a death toll of around 300. If the Haiti quake exceeds that then it should be included (or the Italy quake excluded). As for international coverage, news media cover disasters more enthusiastically because they make "better" news. So far there has been only 1 offer of aid from outside the region (Turkish Red Crescent, whether this is sufficiently international is debatable. In all likelihood it will turn out to be sufficiently notable, BUT as yet there are no reliable reports so we cannot be sure. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's shocked the whole world so I would include it. (Perthshire2009 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

The 2010 Haiti earthquake article now lists Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the PRC, the Dominican Republic, the EU, France, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, the US, and Venezuela as international aid donors. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 14:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is starting to look pretty big.[6] Apparently the entire capital city is in ruins, and among the destroyed buildings is the U.N. peacekeeper compound. If the sources don't already justify inclusion, I'm guessing that they will pretty soon. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think this one should be included now, there are not to many details coming out of Haiti but it does look like a major disaster. FFMG (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to include it. We seem to have arrived at a consensus and the earlier criteria of multiple foreign sources of aid has now been met. Since the discussion began, estimates of the dead has skyrocketed to a maximum of 500,000. This event clearly meets WP:RY and is clearly notable and appropriate for inclusion. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There is too much details, (and most of them are estimates anyway), we should limit ourselves to saying there was an earthquake in Haiti and direct the reader to the main article.
Maybe later we can add more details once they are confirmed. FFMG (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The latest death toll estimate is 45,000-50,000 according to the Red Cross as per the BBC. Although this is a reliable source it is probably best to wait a few more days (before adding it to the entry) as this figure could still change quite significantly. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of the earthquake was discussed??? :facepalm --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously. Not being blessed with clairvoyance the judgement about whether this erathquake was sufficiently notable had to be based on the information available at the time. When this discussion was started the Haiti earthquake article merely mentioned that it was a 7.0 earthquake with vague reports of damage and NO mention of the number of casualties. Within less than a day there were the first reports of substantial casualties at which point it was added. Simple really. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of January 15, 2010

This event does not seem to be particularly notable. Unlike the total eclipse of 2009 (the annular eclipse of 2009 passed by virtually unnoticed) it seems to have attracted little media interest (although understandably overshadowed by the Haiti earthquake). Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is really notable, it happens almost every year. FFMG (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
But this is the longest annular solar eclipse of the third millenium. It is reported by media in Asia, Europe and America. It should be significant enough. --Quest for Truth (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the info at Solar eclipse of January 15, 2010, I'd say that this one probably is notable enough to include. Or, at least, if only one annular eclipse is going to be mentioned in this and the next 990 year articles, this eclipse might very well be the one. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather say the article needs expansion. It's easy to find news report from sources like BBC, CBS and The Times of India. And please note that annular solar eclipse does not happen every year. This one is significant enough to be mentioned. --Quest for Truth (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lhasa de Sela and Kenneth Noland

Although both just pass the 9 mark, I don't think either of them are notable enough to warrant inclusion. Thoughts? --Tocino 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree (I considered bringing their possible exclusion here). de Sala seems to have some international recognition through being multilingual but I wouldn't consider her sufficiently notable within the field of music (perhaps if she's lived another 10 years or so...). Noland appears to have extremely limited notability outside the US. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with de Sela, not with Noland though - he seems to be sufficiently notable if you Google his name. --Jkaharper (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not a question of googling to establish notability, Noland's article does not reflect sufficient international notability. If that article is improved appropriately then his notability may be sufficient, at the moment it is not. I will go ahead and remove them both. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate elections, 2010

Does the 2010 midterm elections in the United States are included in the list? I think that it may not notable outside of the United States and it has been clearly the elections of the country. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not. As per WP:RY#Politics and legislation. There is a page for elections in 2010. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There also exists a page titled, 2010 in the United States where the information would be more relevant there. (Tigerghost (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Avoid "current"

According to WP:DATED, we should avoid words like "current" in articles. Year article such as this one is no exception. The statement "2010 is ... the current year" will cause confusion after 2010. --Quest for Truth (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That statement will not cause confusion after 2010, because that statement will not be in the article after 2010. As per the very first line of WP:DATED--"Avoid statements that will date quickly, except on pages that are regularly updated, such as those that cover current events" (emphasis mine)--this type of page is about as obvious an exception as there can be. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

African Cup of Nations 2010 is not an event?

Sorry, but I have an inclusion which appeared yesterday, but it's no more .. it's about the watch african cup of nations 2010 online which is a significant event. I respect whatever outcome it may be, but I just want to know why it is not included. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chongfl (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As indicated in the edit summary when it was removed, the event fails to meet the criteria in WP:RY. ttonyb (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pernell Roberts

Does Roberts qualifiy. I noticed Dan Blocker, Lorne Greene & Michael Landon are with the respective 1972, 1987 & 1991 articles. PS- I know, Bonanza isn't a inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately he does not meet the criteria in WP:RY. Blocker, Green, and Landon are in the prior years probably because WP:RY is only about a year old and has not been applied to those years. ttonyb (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added (or re-added, not sure), Lorne Greene to the 1987 article. Blocker & Landon were in their respective 'year' articles, so I assumed Greene met inclusion criteria. I won't protest if all 4 are removed. I'm guessing of the 4, Landon is the only one to meet the current criteria. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I think the 1st paragraph in the 2010 article should be:

2010 (MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year. It is the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/Common Era and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. 129.24.158.142 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Any change to the format of the lead paragraph must be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Recent years - not here. Please state your reasons beyond it is your feeling. In addition, please sign you entries by using 4 tildes. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Google vs. China

Could the pullout of Google in China be considered significant enough to be included in this article due to the nature of China's human rights record and strict internet policing/censorship of that nation? I know that it has not occured yet, but the rumors are fierce. I believe that if Google does pulls out then it should be added to the events. (Tigerghost (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

This is not really notable, Yahoo did it a while ago, and Google is only threatening to pull out, they have not even done it yet.
We cannot start listing every single business decision made, (For example, in my neck of the woods, Nestle pulled out of Zimbabwe in 2009). FFMG (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Google is the world largest search engine provider, and the largest company on the world wide web. China is also the largest countries in the world in terms of population, and owns the largest internet population (> 300 million). So Google's decision in China is very notable. However, in this case, Google is just "threating" to pull out, not really do so. So in this case, I don't think we should include that. Joe2008 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Franco Ballerini

Meets WP:RY but his article had no references before his death and, as with Khusainov above, it seems like he has been added more to complete a group of people (professional cyclists) than for any individual notability. He did not win any major cycle races and did not place highly in the Tour de France. I don't see how he can be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Commonwealth Games

I deleted 2010 Commonwealth Games several times because

  • Prior consensus allows no sporting events' entry but Olympics (& Paralympics) and FIFA World Cup on year's pages, unless anything internationally-notable happens at the events.
  • As its name indicates, participating nations of Commonwealth Games are limited to British Commonwealth nations, so something alike domestic events rather than International.
  • (I do not suggest, but) All-Africa Games, Asian Games, Pan American Games, all of which are IOC-approved events, as well as Special Olympics, Universiades, World Games, and X Games, all of which have participants from all over the world, should be made if Commonwealth Games are allowed.

--Belle Equipe (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Does Youth Olympic Games may meet the guidelines according to WP:YEARS policy? As stated above, only Olympics (Summer & Winter; including Paralympics) and FIFA World Cup is using on years articles. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say not. The various age-group football world cups are not included so age-group Olympic-type sports gatherings should not be either. If we did then a case could made for all the other such festivals (Firemans, Gay, Special, Masters etc. etc.) and they do not get anything like the same coverage, and therefore notability, as the full international festivals. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say yes for this year only because it is the inaugural one, and in the same manner for the inaugural winter one to be held in 2012.--Belle Equipe (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It is possible that people are adding it because they don't know that it shouldn't be added. i myself did that a while back - not realising that it wasn't supposed to be added - perhaps place a note in the text saying that it shouldn't be put in. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
i guess 2006 commonwealth games should also be removed,2002,1998 and so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006#March
bullshit stop being a supremacist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.71.110 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
there is nothing bull about it.its ironic that you are calling me supremacist.If not 2010 then why the 2006 page as the aussie commenwealth link.remove it also and all previous links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.172.2 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest both of you step back for this and take a deep breath. I also suggest that we remain WP:CIVIL and remember this is a community of like-minded editors that are trying to provide a quality product. 122.161.71.110 I highly suggest you retract your comment, focus on the issue at hand, and stop making comments that attack the user. If you continue to attack users you may find yourself banned from Wikipedia.
188.221.79.22 to answer your question, it the entry does not meet the inclusion guidelines for prior years, then, yes it should be removed. ttonyb (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Note that the 122 IPs are both from Delhi/New Delhi and both only ever made 1 contribution to wiki. If I was a cynic I would make certain assumptions. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

John Murtha and 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls

A couple things:

  • I restored the Murtha entry because he has enough articles, but I'm not entirely sure that he was very notable outside the United States. As an American, I recognized his name, but I couldn't really recall anything outstanding that he'd done, even domestically. Perhaps that's just me being ignorant, but in any case, his was not a household name like Ted Kennedy. Also, most of the foreign articles about him are stubs. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how he can be considered internationally notable. His involvement in Iraq controversies etc seems largely of domestic significance. At the time of his death he had only 7 non-English articles and as you have pointed out these were/are mostly stubs. Another case my proposed change to the WP:RY Deaths criteria would have avoided. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
He is also considerably less internationally notable than Charlie Wilson. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the recall should be mentioned. It's a Japan-based company, apparently recalling vehicles mostly in the U.S. Perhaps not surprisingly, the 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls article exists only in English and Japanese. Basically it looks like a mainly American event that has raised some eyebrows in Japan, and probably is not a very big deal outside the U.S. Also, the recalls started last year--so the January update arguably reads more like a news bulletin than like anything else. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is so minor I can't believe it's been allowed to stay. It's news, nothing more. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree in both should be removed, one was not internationally notable enough, (and after a very small search he was not that notable in his own country).
The other is just a normal product recall, I agree that it is a fairly sizeable product recall but in reality it is just news.
Just a small point, the recall is happening all over, not just Japan and the US, (but that does not mean it should be included). FFMG (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jean Simmons

Ok seriously. Stop screwing around with the obituary pics. Jean Simmons has a picture and JD Salinger doesnt now?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.115.122 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Decades

The article states that in 2010 the new decade will begin. This is wrong, since the decade officially begins in 2011.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LtDoc (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 November 2005

There WAS a 0 year (how could there be no 0 if it is a number?)—This unsigned comment was added by Pronoun (talk • contribs) .

Numbers have nothing to do with it. 1 BCE was followed by 1 CE; there was no Year 0.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that guy who said 1990-1999, because 1990 isn't part of the 80s. It was part of the 90s. It has to belong somewhere.... the year has to belong somewhere, but it could not have been part of the 80s as it wasn't numerically. I'm old, I should know this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.243.215 (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that guy who said 1990-1999, because 1990 isn't part of the 80s. It was part of the 90s. It has to belong somewhere.... the year has to belong somewhere, but it could not have been part of the 80s as it wasn't numerically. I'm old, I should know this stuff. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The year 1990 was never part of the 80's. This is how majority (and I mean MAJORITY) of people think. - 24.36.115.4 (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh* There was no year 0, therefore the first decade CE would have been years 1..10 (if it existed). The new millenium began in 2001 and the new decade will begin in 2011. --PeterJeremy (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
as pointed out above, it may be technically incorrect (as there was no year 0) BUT IT MAKES SENSE - unless you plan on putting 1980 in the 70's (it has an 80 in it, it is in the 80's - the 80s are 1980-1989, the 90s 1990-1999, next decade 2000-2009 and then 2010-2019) so if common sense means making the first set (1AD to 9AD) only 9 years - then common sense is what should be used. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fine with me that Millenium started in 2001 but the decade in 2000. It will give school math teachers another opportunity to keep kids interested. There is no other purpose in those counts, really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.1.138 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Was 2000 in the 1990's as in 1991-2000? 19:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.139.184 (talk)

No. 1990s is 1990 - 1999. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to me and common sense, the 0s decade ran from 1 AD until 9 AD.

13:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.139.184 (talk)

Galimzyan Khusainov

He meets the minimum WP:RY criteria, although he was well short prior to his death. His article contains little more than the bare minimum one would expect of an article on any international footballer. The only reference is from a Russian football site (although there may be more in a few days). This all suggests that he is not really sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As there have been no arguments against removing him after 1 week I will go ahead and remove him. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitespace

Does anyone know how to format the January and February sections so that the text for February is at the top of the section, next to the Haiti Earthquake image rather than pushed down below it? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The European "Hit Squad" in the Hamas killing in Dubai?

Should we include this event? It seems rather important in the War on Terror and how it affects many different nations.

  • United States news article (MSNBC): [7]
  • United Kingdom news article (BBC News): [8]
  • Al Jazerra English news article: [9]
  • Australian news article (ABC News): [10]

It was just a thought? (Tigerghost (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

I consider it to be no more than news and insufficiently notable for this article. Does it have its own article? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili

If as expected he gets the nine foreign wiki articles, I would not include him in the deaths section in this page as he was only ever as successful as finishing 55th in the 2008-09 Luge World Cup, that he was very young when he died and his wiki entry only being a stub when he was alive. Ifore2010 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He should not be added, he is only notable for his death and that is insufficient for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with not including him. ttonyb (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Pathetic. He should be added. He is clearly noticable. Doesn't matter if he is only noticable because of his death, he is an olympian. I have NO idea who half of the people who get added are. I vote to add him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.172.56 (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, he is notable in Georgia and but not in other sports. Clearly, he is not added. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hows about the news section, is it relevant to add his fatal accident under the 12th of February? RBM 72 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is already there. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

I removed the following comment:

I question if it really has set "...off a diplomatic landslide for Israel." Should this death be put into Deaths section instead? Commments? ttonyb (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider someone who didn't even have an English article created for them until 11 days after their death as sufficiently notable. His death has only recently become a media story but even that isn't particularly internationally notable (at the moment it's just another media beat-up). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Given the regularity with which vandalism appears on this page it would be helpful if it was semi-protected for a few weeks, if not permanently. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. ttonyb (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This really should be semi-protected because of all the vandalism that occurs everyday. The reason why it is a vandal target because it is the current year. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

February 27 earthquakes

I think we may be getting carried away with including — even major — earthquakes. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of "major". A magnitude 8.8 earthquake is probably major for geological science, but minimal deaths (there were only 6 when I first removed it) is probably insufficiently notable for this article. The latest death toll is 140+ and it seems likely it will go higher. I've noted previously that there have been approximately 20 earthquakes with a death toll of over 100 in the last 10 years. That wold seem to be an approriate minimum for inclusion in a Year article. The number of countries impacted by the earthquake (and tsunami) should also be taken into account. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GM Volt release

Is this truly notable enough on a world perspective - the release of a hybrid car in US only (initially) years after the Prius (the market dominator and undeniable paradigm shifter)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oosh (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 March 2010

I agree with you and I removed it, this is not the first hybrid car, (by far), and as far as we know there is nothing really technologically revolutionary in their design so it is not exactly news worthy.
We cannot start listing everything, (such as the Apple iPad for example), every time some corporation releases it. FFMG (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Quakes

How about using this photo that shows Haiti and Chile?

File:2010 Haiti Chile.jpg Juowikis (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladislav Ardzinba

Per WP:DUE, I would suggest changing "1st President of Abkhazia" to something like "Soviet-born politician". Although the Vladislav Ardzinba article does call him the "1st President of Abkhazia", the Abkhazia page points out that the overwhelming majority of nations do not even recognize Abkhazia as an independent state. Therefore, most of the world would not consider "President of Abkhazia" to be an existing position. But, seeing as Ardzinba's article (oddly) recognizes this WP:FRINGE title, I figured I should make the suggestion on talk before actually changing anything. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If only a handful of countries recognize Abkhazia the nhe should probably not be listed as its president. Unless someone can think of a better description I think we should go with "Soviet-born politician". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue of international recognition of Abkhazian independence is not related to the fact that Ardzinba served as President of Abkhazia. There is a President of Taiwan and a President of Kosovo and a President of Western Sahara too, even though those territories are largely unrecognized. --Tocino 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Of all the disputed areas you mentioned, all--except for Abkhazia--seem to be recognized as independent states by at least a significant minority of established nations. I count a mere four countries (plus three additional disputed regions) that recognize Abkhazia as a sovereign state (and therefore as capable of being headed by a president). If I were to declare myself The King of Town, and even if the town affirmed my declaration, my "position" would remain internationally invalid (in other words, the position would not be internationally notable, even if I--on account of my eccentricity, perhaps--became an internationally recognizable figure, and therefore came to merit recognition as some breed of "American-born politician"). Being legitimated by only four established nations, the position, "President of Abkhazia" seems to be only a step or two ahead of "The King of Town". Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
To put it from a slightly different angle, Ardzinba should not be listed as "President of Abkhazia", for much the same reason that Sun Myung Moon should not be introduced as the "Second Coming of Christ". Although this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, the basic fact remains: In both cases, the associated title is considered invalid by the vast majority of the relevant population. In other words, both labels, if presented as objective fact, carry WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. In fact, Moon actually has a slight advantage here, because a significant portion of the population regards the Second Coming of Christ, in and of itself, as a valid concept. But most do not consider Abkhazia to be a place that can be served by a president (other than, at the moment, Mikheil Saakashvili, who is internationally regarded as the only president of Abkhazia--along with the rest of Georgia) in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The bottomline is that Abkhazia is still in the same boat as the aforementioned disputed regions. None of them are considered by the UN to be sovereign nations and therefore they are not true members of the international community, despite their de facto status as independent states. The amount of recognitions means little. It's like comparing which deformed penis is the largest. Also, Abkhazia is much different from your strawman. It has a history, culture, and language that is unique from Georgia and Abkhazian independence is not an illusion, it is very real. --Tocino 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Something is very real over there, that's for sure. But, regardless of where anybody's sympathies lie, the bottom line actually is policy: "In general ... the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority." "The amount of recognitions", then, would seem to mean everything (would it not?) in an article like this one, where space is especially prohibitive. If entire articles end up lending undue credence to widely unsupported viewpoints merely by mentioning those viewpoints, then a single entry in a deaths list plainly has no wiggle room. So I would think that, as far as WP:DUE is concerned with respect to lists, "Vladislav Ardzinba, 1st President of Abkhazia" and "Earth, a flat disc" actually are in the same boat: Most of the world would not consider either entry to be conceptually valid. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me...

Like this page has some serious ownership issues, as in the WP:Years or a particular group of editors are taking it upon themsevles to constantly police this article, and also using personal discretion to determine what should and shouldn't be included on this page. I commend you for your efforts to keep this article how you want it. Now stop. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use discretion? A certain group of editors has had continual interest in this article and in others like it, and in the guideline that helps to structure these pages and to prevent them from becoming a free-for-all. If trying to maintain some sort of order amounts to "policing", then so be it. But guess what? You're welcome to join the force! If you don't like the consensus that a certain group of editors has reached, then state your case and see if you can change the consensus through reasoned arguments. Don't just launch vague attacks on editors. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with Kuzwa. The arbitrary rules we've come up with are sometimes overzealously enforced, which can scare newcomers. --Tocino 20:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deaf & blind this March

It seems wikipedians are deaf & blind to all the news this march, why cant there be more added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanmullen09 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a NEWS article, it is for notable international events. The criteria for inclusion are at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In addition to echoing what Derby said, I would add that calling us "deaf & blind" to some nameless plethora of information does not provide us with a whole lot of...well, information. If we're missing something, then tell us what we're missing. Don't just tell us that we're missing something: Merely telling someone that they're in the dark is not going to make them see the light. It's true that "all the news" could turn out to be a whole lot of nothing in terms of encyclopedic content. But, Dean, if you know of some event that seems to pass WP:RY, then please feel free to enlighten us. Better yet, be a part of "us" by contributing in a more collaborative spirit. Be WP:BOLD and edit the article yourself. Just be aware that, if you want to make an edit that is not consistent with WP:RY, you'll need to obtain consensus that the edit is a valid exception to the rules. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fess Parker

What about Fess Parker (died March 18, 2010),I would think he was as notable as Peter Graves. See Davy Crockett (TV series) & Daniel Boone (TV series). Have to admit a COI, I spent a lot of time expanding his article post mortem. I'll go with the consensus. Comments please?. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think he is more deserving of notability than for example Corey Haim, however his article is still some way short of meeting the minimum WP:RY criteria. I'd like to see him included (or a few others excluded) but can't think of a good enough reason. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare reform

I added the President signing health care reform into law. For Americans, regardless of your political party affiliation, this is a momentous achievement. Hopefully there will be no doubts to the merits of the inclusion as I know as an American that this issue is very touchy. The criteria for adding events in years pages are below.

  • Three-continent rule--check, added refs from BBC, Al Jazeera and the Washington Post
  • Legislation--check, the US was the last holdout of industrialized nations without wide-ranging insurance practices reforms and laws aimed at insuring most citizens

Please discuss here before deleting. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a domestic item that belongs in 2010 in the US, not here. There is nothing international in nature about this event. This has been removed numerous times for not fitting the criteria in WP:RY.
Since this has been removed numerous times by various editors - this is in itself a form of concensus - I will be removing this again. If this discussion comes to a consensus that it should be added, then it can then be added back in. ttonyb (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
New Deal acts, the Social Security Act, Medicare were all significant pieces of legislation that were added to various years pages. Health care reform today sought to insure 32 million more Americans--the rest. This legislation has been cited as being the most significant since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Medicare Act.
You cite a consensus that this shouldn't be added. Where is it? I can tell you exactly why HCR isn't on this page and it is because people don't agree with it. If you're an American you know that, and everyone who formed the "consensus" knows that. Should we also delete United States Presidential Election, 2008 because some people don't like President Obama? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
New Deal acts, the Social Security Act, Medicare are important and should be added to the year in the US; however, if they exist in the general year, it does not mean they should be there. The insurance of 32 million Americans is important and should be added to the 2010 in the United States article. I strongly disagree with your comment that the HCR is has not been added to this article because of some sort of censorship, in fact I take umbrage with your statement implying that I and other editors are censoring Wikipedia. Any bias, either for or against, should not factor in to the decision to add it to or delete it from the article. As far as I can tell, there has been no bias associated with the decision to remove the event from the article. ttonyb (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Personally, as an American and a staunch supporter of universal health care, I'm absolutely delighted that the bill has passed. Editorially, however, I see no reason whatsoever to include it on this article. The article is about a year that belongs equally to all nations that happen to be whipping around the Sun for the 2010th time since... well, 2010 years ago. Accordingly, the article functions to document 2010 as an internationally, globally notable span of time. And the fact of the matter is, as far as reasonable health care coverage is concerned, the rest of the (industrialized) globe beat us to it--before 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not an international event of 2010; it is a domestic catching-up with an international series of events which predated 2010. It is a great thing (IMHO), and it is perfectly suitable for mention in the 2010 in the United States article. But probably not on the general 2010 page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with others here, this is not international news, I am not sure why the international media is covering it with so much interest, it has zero impact on the rest of the world. I guess news are a bit slow lately. FFMG (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Exclude. Domestic. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody in the world is doubting that it belongs in the US article. The New Deal Acts, et al had near zero effect on the rest of the world. I'm uninterested in a crusade for health care to be noted on this page, what I am interested in, however, is consistency. I think it is something we should all want. If the New Deal Acts, et al, had no effect on the rest of the world those entries should be deleted as should all nations' pieces of legislation listed in the years pages. To Tony, please don't take a personal offense to the accusation. I was merely noting the existence of political bias on Wikipedia. We all know it's here... that it's alive and well. I agree that no bias should be included in decision-making, but again, it's a reality, and I would not doubt if any decision-making in re HCR has been biased motivated. Remember, editors here are people, and most have a political party affiliation. I spoke with an Administrator earlier who echoed the same thinking. Recap: do we agree that America-centric legislation that affects only Americans should be deleted from years entries? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Earlier year articles are full of domestic events from many countries, US entries are just the most prevalent. Ideally those events (and births and deaths) should be moved to the appropriate Year in Country article. Unfortunately many countries lack year articles or even timelines. In any case cleaning up even a single year is very time consuming. If anyone wants to go through a couple of hundred year articles moving and removing all the domestic legislation be my guest! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Jeffries

I would like to request that we keep Lionel Jeffries in the "deaths" section. The reason why is because of the fact that he acted in many films throughout British history, including Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and directed some very popular films in British culture, such as The Railway Children. I am pretty sure many people have watched these films. I think that all of this is enough to get him a place on this list. Grieferhate (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's notable enough to warrant overriding the 9-article requirement in WP:RY. However, this is the correct place to bring it up, so we can wait for further comments from other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately British history and culture is not the same as international history and culture. Lionel Jeffries is undoubtedly well known in the UK and some other Commonwealth countries (such as NZ) but the same can be said for a number of soap stars who have also been excluded. As with TV personalities who were extremely well known in the US (Ed McMahon, Billy Mays etc) but who do not meet the WP:RY criteria this suggests that they are in fact not sufficiently notable internationally for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the "unfortunately" about in that statement? If your desire is to tell someone, we cannot do this *because* British history and culture is not the same as international history and culture, then all well and good. Surely whether it is unfortunate or not that that is not the case is very much a matter of opinion so not exactly a compelling argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.65.143 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The unfortunate refers to the opinion of the user who thinks that being important in British culture is sufficient for this article. In other words "Unfortunately 'for you' while you may be correct with regards to Lionel Jeffries' importance to British culture that is not sufficient for inclusion in this article as this article requires international notability as per the guidelines at WP:RY." DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Moscow Metro bombings

This is a domestic event which is not uncommon in Russia, it just hasn't happened for a while. I don't think it should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think due to the large loss of life and the condemnation of the attacks by many nations it deserves recognition. Who are we to decided what people in the future will want to know? --AycliffeAngel (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
What constitutes a "large" loss of life? Hundreds of people died in the March 2010 Jos riots but that has not been included. International condemnation of such attacks is standard for countries that do not experience them on a regular basis, this does not really make any more notable. And the purpose of this talk page, as well as the agreed guidelines at WP:RY, is to establish what is sufficiently notable for inclusion NOW. Many incidents that achieve widespread news coverage become considerably less memorable (in an international sense) in a relatively short space of time, that is why WP:NEWS is kept distinct from articles such as this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks domestic to me as well. I've tightened the entry a bit, but I don't see any real reason to keep it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Also look like a domestic event to me, sadly, (otherwise the 2010 Jos riots, and maybe others, should be included). FFMG (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are saying this was a domestic event wouldnt the Haiti and Chile earthquakes be considered a domestic events as well. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not even a fair comparison to begin with. The Haiti earthquake destroyed a nation's entire capital city and was the fourth-deadliest earthquake ever; the Chile earthquake was one of the most powerful in recorded history. Those two suicide bombers did not destroy the entire city of Moscow, and they did not commit one of the worst acts of violence on record. There's a far greater chance (isn't there?) of history remembering those two earthquakes than remembering a relatively small terrorist attack in a time and place where such attacks are not entirely unusual. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be expanded

This simply must be expanded, the pictures are too close, and the months news are too small, look at the other years like 2008 and/or 2009 each month has a dozen or even more news statements per month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanmullen09 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Being "too small" is not an excuse to add events. Months and years don't have to have a minimum number of events. Previous years may include events which are not really sufficiently notable to be included (prior to 2008 this is almost certain). If too many pictures disrupt the article then it would be better to reduce the number of pictures. As we're only one third of the way through the year it might be better to wait until closer to the end of the year to discuss the "look" of the article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So-called notable

I dunno why the Baengnyeong incident and the Moscow one were considered "non-notable events" by someone. I dunno what's the situation in "your side" of the globe, but as a guy who lives in this side of the globe, I can assure you that these were big international headlines here. Qrfqr (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Moscow frequently has bombings, and you didn't describe why the Baengnyeong incident might be notable in the entry. If the article is accurate, it might be notable, but perhaps not notable for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Alright, sorry for not having read the discussion beforehand. Now I know that "being domestic" is a reason for an event not to be listed here, no matter how influential it is or will be. So Hitler's ascendency to power in 1933 would not have been notable since it was domestic. I am very sorry for this kind of shortsighted criteria and the time I spent on this article. Don't wanna even have an argue. Just go ahead and delete whatever you want. Qrfqr (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the Moscow bombing was discussed at #2010 Moscow Metro bombings above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think that it is a manifestation of ignorance, arrogance, and egocentricity to demand someone to give a reason to list an event as notable in one place but not in other places. Qrfqr (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion of WP:RY (for over 6 months) and of WP:YEARS; we can't list every event, or even every event which has it's own Wikipedia article, as the article would be too long to be usable. "International notability" (with, as a minimum, being reported in news on 3 continents) was the minimal requirement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Baengnyeong incident was reported by media in Asia, CNN, and at least a newspaper in Europe. So was the news of Moscow. But I dont even bother to GIVE any "evidence" as this requirement is really laughable. Maybe some people just think that events happened in some "important (or central) part" of the globe are automatically licenced to be "notable" while those happened in somewhere else need careful evidence and proof. "Being uncommon" is another ridiculous criterion. What is common and what is not? Dont wanna mention the name of the countries, but famines were not uncommon there. So should the editors here TOTALLY IGNORE any news about food crisis there? Or how many people died would be the criterion for such an event to be listed here? I can understand that there are some conditions in order to keep this page manageable, but I really cant understand how these laughable criteria could have been introduced here. Qrfqr (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to point out that the Avtozavodskaya and Rizhskaya bombings were being pointed out in the 2004 article. I vote for putting it in. Zelderu Maryoto (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RY was first applied starting with the years 2008 and 2009, and was not as agressively applied to years back to 2000, even though it now applies there. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why this isn't a good reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Anyone know how to get this done? We could do with at least a few weeks without timewasting vandalism! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this needs semi-protection bad, as this is a highly-visible page because this is an article of the current year. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Belated comment: Just for future reference, requests for protection can be made at WP:RPP. Anyway, I agree. (I don't recall 2009 having been vandalized this much. Strange... maybe it just means that WP is getting more popular. Or, maybe vandals are just starting to target WP's best pages! ;-)) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Corin Redgrave

I see that Corin Redgrave has been added to the article, even though he has only five non-English articles. But I would opt to WP:IAR in his case. Redgrave won the British Olivier Award and was nominated for the American Tony Award. He starred in multiple films of international appeal. And, as Corin Redgrave#Politics points out, he was fervently active in international politics, advocating for causes that spanned the entire length of Europe, and which reached down to the Gaza Strip. Moreover, a prominent source about his death recalls the following: "In the 1990s he founded two new movements: Artists Against Racism and the International Movement For Peace And Justice in Chechnya; and he became a founder member of Symposium 90, an international association researching the origins and consequences of Stalinism." Without meaning any disrespect towards the dead, but with a recollection of last year's debate, I'll assert that Redgrave was no Billy Mays; Redgrave truly was an international figure, with international interests, who (in my opinion) has been strangely underrated by the international WP community, and who probably deserves at least some mention in this article. Any thoughts? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This illustrates a common failing of the 9 non-English articles criteria. I would argue that Corin Redgrave is a more important figure in the English-speaking acting community than Corey Haim (certainly) and Zelda Rubinstein (probably). That he was associated with non-acting, international movements makes him even more notable and I too am surprised at the lack of more foreign language articles. I would certainly think he merits inclusion more than either and if he is to be excluded then they should be too. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Consensus was reached last year that people mainly / solely notable for being a last survivor (Millvina Dean, Henry Allingham, Harry Patch etc.) should be excluded. Yamaguchi is that type of person. Wsxdr (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I raised a similar concern a while ago, but a reasonable objection was made: Yamaguchi was not the "last survivor" of anything. He was the only survivor of both bombings. One might say that a fair amount of notability is due in large part to chance. For instance, there were people in my high school choir who could out-sing some of the most famous superstars back then. But the superstars (in addition to their own talent and initiative) have had the good luck to get to where they are today. Yamaguchi's survival could (I don't know for sure) have little to do with talent and initiative, but his luck is, quite possibly, unsurpassed. Nobody else survived both bombings; nobody else had survived such bombings before; nobody has survived anything like that afterward; and--hopefully--nobody will have to survive that sort of carnage again. One could say that the profoundness of his luck outshines the fact that luck is what he had. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Foot

He is very notable in the UK, but has little international notability. Some of his articles are stubs and / or were created after his death. Wsxdr (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At the time of his death he had 11 non-English articles, unlike many who only reach the minimum after their death through the addition of stub articles copied directly fro mthe English one. I think he exceeds the minimum quite clearly. I also believe that he was internationally notable, but probably only to anyone over 40 years old in Europe or Commonwealth countries, but that too is sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Lakki Marwat suicide bombing

Was this an event of sufficient international notability? Terrorist attacks are common in Pakistan and several other countries. The death toll in this one was higher than in most, and that, combined with the fact that a lot of terrorism in the Western world originates in Pakistan, is probably why there was reaction from high-profile politicians from a few countries. However, I don't see how this attack is of considerable international notability, as it seems that it did not involve any foreigners. Of course politicians are going to condemn it, they wouldn't say they aren't bothered when the media asks for their opinion on it. This is different from 7/7, for example, as the victims of that were from various countries, and all the four bombers had international links. Wsxdr (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have valid points here. However, at the moment, WP:RY allows for a "terrorist attack at a sporting event" to be included. My problem with this (which I just realized) involves the fact that it can be rephrased as, "a sporting event at which a terrorist attack occurs". While a terrorist attack could enhance the notability of a sporting event, does an athletic setting really increase the notability of an attack? I'm reminded of the old anecdote about the priest who asks the Pope if it's okay to pray while smoking. The Pope says yes, asserting that one can never pray too much. But another priest asks if it's permissible to smoke while praying. The Pope says no, declaring that such an act would be blasphemous. Basically, if it all depends upon the wording, then something could be amiss. I'm not sure exactly as to what I'd do with this inclusion criterion, but I think you're right. However, for the sake of due process, I would suggest that you raise the matter at Talk:RY before anyone removes the entry. Feel free to paste my comment there, or to provide a diff to it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that the phrasing at WP:RY should be changed to "international sporting event" as merely being at a sporting event really doesn't make it more notable than a religious or other sort of gathering. I think this entry should stay however as the sheer number of deaths (100+) makes it more notable than most terrorist attacks. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Terre'Blanche

Eugene Terre'Blanche was killed on the 3rd of April and does have enough articles and seem to me making some international headlines [11][12] (as of the 4th of April), but I am on the fence about adding him here.
Maybe someone from outside South Africa has an opinion on adding him or not. FFMG (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would add him due to his current page on wikipedia suggesting some notability. I think we may need a third opinion.--AycliffeAngel (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Apartheid is very well-known around the world (I would be surprised, for instance, if even an American 12-year-old didn't recognize the name Nelson Mandela), and Terre'Blanche seems to have been a major figure in it. I'm on the fence as well, but leaning towards inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Anyway, I count 14 non-English articles for him. This, in combination with what has been said above, is enough for me to favor inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Now the "President of South Africa has stepped forward amid fears of racial violence following the murder of Eugene Terre'Blanche". Since the story is reaching world news and the government of the country is speaking out plus the added recognition of apartheid, I'd definelely include him in the article. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Prior to his death he had only 8 non-English articles. The manner of his death has increased his notability, as has been the case numerous times before. In this case I think that being close to the minimum before his death and now being well over (though I haven't checked the quality of the new articles) is probably enough to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant side note: I'm probably the last to notice this, but a white supremacist whose last name means "white earth"?! Well, I was going to make this comment relevant (at least to his own article), by asking if anyone knew if that was his birth name or a pseudonym, but his article makes it reasonably clear that he was... born to be white. That's a really bad pun, by the way. Anyway... Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In South Africa, as far back as I can remember, no one has used his surname against him or as a joke.
His family came from France and that's how he got his name. There are still many Huguenots in South Africa, so French sounding names are not uncommon, (Labuschagne, Le Roux, Marais, etc...)
But it is a very ironic name indeed. FFMG (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Death of Eugène Terre'Blanche

Does the recent murder of Eugène Terre'Blanche meet the notability guidelines for recent events? He was a leader of the AWB and he has his own Wikipedia article already. We may need to wait until it's more internationally impactful, but it certainly has been sending South Africa in sort of ideological upheaval with members of the ANC government singing songs which say "Shoot the Boer" and protests from both sides at the court case of the suspects in the murder. This is with the World Cup going to SA this summer and with revolutionary and terrorist talk among people seeking a socialist and/or communist revolution. In short, the murder of Eugene Terre'Blanche may well be what ignites violence from all of these tensions but time will tell. Invmog (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Not yet anyway. Even his inclusion in the Deaths section was debated above and there is certainly nothing at the moment that he should be included in the Events section as well. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed Roberts (computer engineer)

He should be added. He is a legacy to the personal computer era, giving Bill Gates his first contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.216.230 (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to meet the requirements, unless the other-language articles are mechanical translations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There were only 3 non-English articles prior to his death so (without checking) I suspect all the others are in fact mechanical translations. He should be notable, whether or not he is as far as wiki is concerned is inconclusive. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish president Lech Kaczynski

I think we definetely need to include this in the events section. Not only has Poland lost it's President, but also a lot of high ranking officials. Having 57 different language articles surely must secure his notability. AycliffeAngel (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For Poland it's one of the biggest tragedy in the history. In 10 April 2010 we lost many notabele pepole. Wikipedia must show show that not only President of Poland has died but many other notable peopole like : Anna Walentynowicz or the last President of Poland in exile President of Poland in exile Ryszard Kaczorowski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.195.106 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

His death can be included in the events section not because it is the biggest tragedy in Poland (since WWII anyway) but because it was in an air accident involving the deaths of 96 people including a head of state. The difference is that the former is not internationally notable but the later is. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

NBA Free Agency 2010

I would like to propose adding the start of NBA free agency on July 1st 2010. I believe this is an important event because it signifies the first day when superstar players in the league become available to sign on the open market, notably Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Amare Stoudamire, and Chris Bosh among others.

I am new to editing wikipedia articles and therefore do not know exactly how to show references, but these are my sources:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/story.asp?story_id=9031

http://www.countdown2lebron.com/home/

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-10-11

Thank You Basjamil (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be in 2010 in sports; it probably should be in 2010 in basketball. It should not be here, even if it be the first year the NBA has free agency, per WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010/Archive_1&oldid=968581105"