Talk:2010/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jorge Gonzalez

He has all the languages needed for inclusion, why is he not really notable for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The languages are a minimum. In this case almost all the foreign language articles are stubs. There is nothing to indicate that he is particularly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, please see this guideline. Convention is that people and events should have some international notability before being included in articles such as this. Rodhullandemu 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that Ifore2010 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident rescue

As of this writing, 19 of the 33 miners have been pulled safely from the shaft where they spent their 2 month ordeal. It seems like this event has garnered much attention from media and people worldwide, and has prompted responses from authorities and governments worldwide. It is also a highly inspiring story and one which has become a point of pride for the country of Chile. Based on this support, I think it is reasonable to include the rescue of the miners on the list. If not now, at least when all of the miners have been freed. SheaF91 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"this event has garnered much attention from media and people worldwide," this makes it News but not necessarily notable. "prompted responses from authorities and governments worldwide" is possibly an indication of notability. "It is also a highly inspiring story and one which has become a point of pride for the country of Chile" is irrelevant for inclusion in this article. On the whole this appears to be largely a News story, although as a unique rescue it could be notable. I'd go with include if there's a clear consensus to do so. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is also reportedly the longest a group has spent underground and resurfaced alive, which makes it very unique. SheaF91 (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Include, history tends to bias negative events over positive ones. This is definitely one of the events this year will be remembered for and as such is important. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of another mining disaster where the victims were rescued after 69 days. I believe the previous record was 64 days. I would say let's be bold and include the event. ttonyb (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards inclusion, too, for the reasons given. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Include. While I agree it is news, this event also has a lot of firsts, (longest underground been one of them).

A lot of countries did get involve in the rescue efforts. FFMG (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of agreement so far, and I'll wait the appropriate amount of time to post it if consensus is maintained, but for now, how does this draft inclusion sound?

• October 13 – After surviving 700 metres underground for a record 69 days, the 33 miners trapped in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident are brought back to the surface.

And for reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39625809/ns/world_news-americas/. MSNBC. 13 October. Retrieved 14 October. SheaF91 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Should it be rewritten so that the fact that the mine was in Chile is evident from the phrasing, eg. "in a Chilean mine" or "Chilean miners" (although that second one would be insufficient considering there is a Bolivian in the group)? SheaF91 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The country (location) certainly needs to be mentioned, the nationality of the miners probably not, that can be determined from the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then:

• October 13 – After surviving for a record 69 days in a 700 metre-deep Chilean mine, the 33 miners trapped in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident are brought back to the surface. SheaF91 (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This wording is a bit awkward - sounds like they were trapped inside an accident. I propose something like

• October 13 – After surviving for a record 69 days in a 700 metre-deep mine near Copiapó, Chile, the 33 miners trapped underground after a mining accident are brought back to the surface.

— Yerpo ^Eh? 07:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget to link to the mine article somewhere: San José Mine. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we are over-thinking this. I have added a version to the article. ttonyb (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob Guccione

His death ought to be included. He established Penthouse (magazine), a multi-billion dollar international magazine and produced Caligula (film), which was also a worldwide phenomenon. It may just be infamy, but he is a well-known figure. Iloveapphysics (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Only 6 non-English articles when he died. Several of those are still stubs and some have only the English citations. Seems like a case of being well-known in the US, and perhaps the rest of the English-speaking world, but not truly internationally. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Although that may be true of his personal page, Penthouse (magazine) and Caligula (film) have more extensive coverage. In fact, Penthouse publishes several international editions, and Caligula was a joint production between the United States and Italy (incidentally, it was a featured page on the Hungarian Wikipedia). I think he is notable internationally. Iloveapphysics (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they would have a bigger coverage, he was their founder, (I think). FFMG (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, he did not meet the requirements and should be excluded. We cannot go and add every single person that creates a magazine, no matter how popular it might be in the long run.

He is, (mostly), only known for his magazine and not much else outside the English speaking world. In fact I guess most people know of penthouse, but not of him personally. FFMG (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Teen Suicides

Are the rash of teen suicides in America this Fall enough of an "event" to be listed here? John AMD (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines pretty much answer your question. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Luge Tragedy

There's no reference to this among deaths or events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodar_Kumaritashvili —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.210.74 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed here. Consensus was to exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

I've added some images to the page, partly in an attempt to balance out the space traken up by the monthly calendar boxes, which are quite frankly taking up too much of the article. If they were collapsible it might make life easier! If anyone has alternative solutions it would be appreciated. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The photos, as they are, look good. SheaF91 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's visit to India

I believe Barack Obama's impending visit to India on November 6 warrants a mention in the Scheduled events section for November 2010.
Barack Obama's India Iterinary
Over 200 top executives planning to come alongwith Obama

Edited by Siddhesh Joglekar (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

State leaders visit other countries all the time, there is nothing to indicate this is more significant than any other. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Motzfeldt

He has the ten foreign articles required and was a country leader but his English language article was nothing more than a stub when he died. Still worthy for inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has been that state leaders should be included unless there are strong reasons not to do so (eg extremely brief term of office). I see no reason not to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Manila hostage crisis

This article was covered by the international media and received widespread attention. This is considered as an international event and such must be placed with the notable events of 2010. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As per the previous discussion, to which you contributed, the consensus is to exclude. 06:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul the Octopus

Is it possible to put in the roster of famous people who died in 2010 Paul the Octopus. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Animals are not included in the article. ttonyb (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nestor Kirchner dead picture need

 Done

recent former president of Argentina, married with current president, his dead need/should/must a picture in the deaths list

former argentinian president Néstor Kirchner.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.148.189 (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is not enough room. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, somebody added his picture! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Add Charlie O' Donald's Death

 Not done We don't appear to have an article on him, so your request is insufficiently precise. Rodhullandemu 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest some positive stories

This article reads as a list of disasters, and science/technology breakthroughs. Didn't anything go right in the world besides science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is how the world works, these days. News about disasters sell good, which is why they are more likely to attract worldwide coverage. Apart from that, it is easier to assess the impact of such events. Perhaps a crucial political deal has been made this year somewhere, but its significance will only become apparent after a while. Wikipedia's main role is to report significance, not create it (see Wikipedia:No original research) and consensus for inclusion is what it is (see WP:RY). Perhaps you can suggest a positive story that's worthy of inclusion, but there actually are a couple of those in the list too, such as the 2010 Winter Olympics and the successful rescue of Chilean miners. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit/Revert request

{{editsemiprotected}} At October 26th, Giggles416 (talk · contribs) has changed the number of dead from the 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi to the un-referenced figure of 240.
The most recent referenced figure is 194 from 12 November. Could a nice editor please revert? OR If you can find a source that confirms 240 is correct, even better! Unfortunately 'Giggles' is ignoring other editors concerns and is changing data on multiple articles, but leaving the old references in place! {{Reflist}} - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: In this edit. Hopefully okay. AP now says 240. If not, replace the template. -Atmoz (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention Atmoz - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi's release

I think putting it's necessary to put Aung San Suu Kyi's release as an important event and should be included in the 2010 notable events. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really an international event. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Mr. DerbyCountryinNZ Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion if there was any hope that this release would be any different from all the previous ones. As it is, the elections are over and I don't have a slightest doubt that they will just put her back in if she stays in the country and starts raising her voice again (sad and wrong as it may be). — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we include the announcement of the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup in December?

Just pushing it out there... Since the people announced that Rio de Janeiro gets to host the 2016 Olympics and it's on the list of major events in the 2009 article, should we also post the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup events when they get announced on December 2 in the 2010 article? Give me the facts. Typingwestern015 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No because it's not about 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No way. If that's significant, maybe we should list the date on which they announced the date on which the date of those two World Cups will be announced. Let's just stick to actual events please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why is the announcement of Rio de Janeiro as the host of the 2016 Olympics in the 2009 events page? in that case, shouldn't it also be kept off? Typingwestern015 (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Feel free to delete it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

John Murtha

There was some dispute on whether he should be included in the deaths section but there never seemed to be a conclusion. Is he still worthy of his 2010 main deaths entry?

His English article does reflect any particular international notability. His non-English articles are still mostly stubs with either no references or just the English ones. In short, No, he isn't worthy of inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Urbano Navarrete Cortés

The mininum nine foreign articles needed but a relative English stub, your thoughts for possible inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Even less claim to international notability than John Murtha. Articles are insubstantial and citations minimal. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Pike River Mine inclusion

This is in reference to edit being undone
How is this not 'internationally notable'? Its one of the main stories on CNN, BBC and New York Times websites and is a far more significant event than some of the events already listed.

How is this any less important than the Chilean miners who survived? If anything this is more tragic because 10 more died than the number who lived in the Chilean case. O for Awesome (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar, and ever greater, mining accidents happen regularly in China. Why should the NZ one be included when they are not? Remembering that news coverage is not in itself confirmation of notability. In fact disasters should really be based, at least in the first instance, on the number of deaths involved. As for the Chilean mining incident, it was 33 miners, and it's notability rests on the length of time underground and the depth they were at as well as the fact that is highly unusual for so many to have actually survived. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

At the time of writing Pike River Mine disaster now has 34 references. This means the event is notable. Suggest you revert yourself. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't notable, it wouldn't have an article. It has to be more than that to merit inclusion in this list. Suggest you actually read what DerbyCountyinNZ wrote. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So what is the criteria for inclusion in this article? That DerbyCountyinNZ thinks it's "important" enough? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are criteria at WP:RY. If the consensus is that this meets those criteria then it gets included. There is no consensus yet. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, mine disasters happen regularly in China, but not so often in advanced western nations. THAT'S what makes it notable. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is an international article, something which is notable in an "advanced western nation" because of its rarity doesn't make it internationally notable if it is a common occurence in the rest of the world. Remember that this doesn't apply to just one type of disaster, or indeed any event. This is why not every ferry disaster killing 50 people in the Philippines or Bangladesh or terrorist bombing killing 20 or 30 people in Iraq or Afghanistan is included. Such an event in an "advanced western nation" might be rarer but it doesn't necessarily make it more important. Events such as this should rest on their scale and international impact, not just how much new coverage they receive. Having said that the fact that citizens from 3 other nations were also included does indicate a more international impact. However, I'd still like to see if others feel this justifies inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ, mine accidents are all too common, the fact that 29 people died is very sad, but it is not a first.

It is also very wrong to assume that because it happened in an "advanced western nation", it is more notable than when it happens in China.

In any case, it is not a first, even in so called, "advanced western nation". FFMG (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That misrepresents what I was trying to say when mentioning that it happened in an advanced western nation. The point in emphasising that is that it is notable that it happened in a place where it would be less expected to happen. I intended in no way to suggest that deaths in developing nations were less important. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Irvin Kershner

I've remopved him on the basis that although, he meets the minimum criteria of 9 non-English articles, those non-English articles are mostly stubs or little more, look like clones of the English one with little native language input and many use only the IMDB source or other English ones. I think he could more appropriately be included in 2010 in film rather than here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He exceeds the criteria, it's not like the section suffers from being too long anymore, why not just include him? He's clearly substantially internationally famous. Gran² 10:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he only exceeds the minimum criteria. And how is he "clearly substantially internationally famous"? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Adriaan Blaauw

Another case of 9+ foreign articles but a relative English stub. Thoughts for inclusion? Ifore2010 (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of his articles are stubs, even the slightly bigger ones are clones with no or very limited references. Doesn't seem enough to justify inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Edwards

Does she fit the criteria for the 'death' section? GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The minimum criteria as per WP:RY is 9 non-English articles. She has 3, all stubs/clones. In short, no, she doesn't. Probably the Deaths section of 2010 in the United States would be more appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats too bad, because I remember a time when it was perfectly ok to mention Important American Citizens. Now it seems the trend is to get rid of anything American in Wikipedia and the time lines. Its also sad that Wikileaks gets mentioned but the very important 2010 Congressional Elections are not mentioned at all. If you ask any Historian they would be shocked that such an election didn't even get mentioned. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a time (until about mid 2008) when there were no criteria for inclusion in Year articles and they were full of internationally non-notable events and people! That has been corrected. And I think the whole wikileaks hype is more [[WP:NEWS}} than notable too. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Agathe von Trapp

• Agathe von Trapp, 97, Austrian Member of the Trapp family (The Sound of Music). [1]

i believe this woman should warrant inclusion in world wide deaths since we have all seen the sound of music and have heard of "Liesl" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

She would only qualify if she has nine or more non-English articles across various language Wikipedias- see WP:RY. Rodhullandemu 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Billingsley

Barbara Billingsley died October 16, 2010 and should be included on the Deaths list. 13.13.16.2 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

She's not notable enough. Check WP:RY for criteria. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Henry IV of France

I think the discovery of the head of Henry IV of France is a very important event.So I think you should include it in the notable events of December 2010.After the article about NASAs announcement of the discovery of a new form of life in California. 85.75.83.33 (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this internationally notable? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Salvador Jorge Blanco

Only five foreign articles but he was still a head of state, your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As per previous consensus heads of state are included regardless of the number of non-English articles unless there is strong argument to exclude (i.e. extremely short tenure involving no international events). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sebastián Piñera

Is there any chance of having Sebastián Piñera being sworn in as President of Chile on March 11, and the earthquakes that occurred during the ceremony added into the list? Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Elections, and swearings in, are not internationally notable (although some people think the US is an exception). A coincidental earthquake involving only one death is also not internationally notable. See the WP:RY guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Avi Cohen

He has 11 non-English articles but after reading his whole English article I don't know if his career was notable enough to warrant inclusion. He scored the goal that won the 1980 title for Liverpool despite never being a regular for the club and won 51 caps for Israel in an age when there were not many international games as there is now. Your thoughts? Ifore2010 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. His non-English articles are stubs/English clones. His international career doesn't seem particularly notable, certainly at the lower end of international footballers. I'd say exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Farrell

I've removed him for the following reasons. Boney M is famous but how many people would know who Bobby Farrell was? His career outside Boney M is certainly not notable. His non-English articles are mostly clones of the English one, and that is little more than a list of releases and the slimmest biographical detail. As with Mary Travers in 2009 the consensus was to exclude on the basis that while the group is well-known the individual is not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. James Michael 1 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pavel Kolchin

More than ten articles, had successful Winter Olympics but yet his English page is a relative stub, worthy for inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd rate any Olympic champion in a proper sport above a third-rate actor/celebrity who is known outside the US for a single film...but I may be a bit biased. I should probably disqualify myself from voting! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not 2010

Cthornton799 (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Wait, it's not 2010 any more in the UK! The article says: '2010 IS a common year starting on Yadada-yadada etc.' I am just a stickler for detail...

2010 Summer Youth Olympics

The 2010 Summer Youth Olympics is significant internationally, it's the first youth olympic games hosted by Singapore. Other sporting events like the world cup are also stated here? — muckysock94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Only the Olympics (not the Youth Olympics, or Para-Olympics) and World Cup are included in recent year articles, per WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GFAJ-1

Does the unsupported hype about "arsenic life" really warrant placement as one of the most significant events of 2010? It was surely one of the biggest media circuses, but it wasn't actually important as the claims didn't stand up. NASA's claims about having found a microbe capable of replacing phosphorous with arsenic are widely doubted, e.g. see [2]. Do we want to reward "science by press release"? Fences&Windows 22:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. If the claims are widely disputed then the notability of the entry disappears and it should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

April 16, 2011 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 23:17, April 17, 2011 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

• July 3 - A tank truck explosion, following to fire in resident area in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Resulting to death toll of 232 people.
• August 7 - A torrential rain, following to landslide hit in Gansu, China, which kills 1,744 person.

Car crashes

About 70,000 people died in car wrecks between the U.S. and the European Union. Why doesn't this appear in a recap of the year but plane crashes killing a hundred people do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Statistics_in_the_European_Union http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of any yearly statistics should be discussed at WP:RY of WP:YRS. Country-specific stats do not belong in general Year articles such as this one but in the appropriate Year in Country article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Stuxnet

What about including Stuxnet? It is generally held that this is the technologicly most advanced and specialized malware at present, and it is conjectured to have opened a new era of intelligence and military affairs. Its historical relevance stems both from engineering science and politics. Malware like ILOVEYOU is noted in 2000 as well. Any objections? --131.220.99.58 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Which event involving the Stuxnet would you include? Note that most of the background available to general public is pure speculation at this point. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/15/bloomberg1376-L0WS531A74E9-1.DTL
  • In Disaster tourism on 2011-03-17 11:26:35, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 on 2011-06-18 11:48:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Julia Gillard is the first female prime minister of Australia, there is no reason why that should not be mentioned as she is now world-known. According to Forbes 2010, she ranks in the top 100 most powerful women (in general) [3].

Other Prime Minister's/ Presidents mentioned (elections/resignations/sworn in etc.) in the years articles:

1999

• November 27 – The left-wing Labour Party takes control of the New Zealand government, with leader Helen Clark becoming the second female Prime Minister in New Zealand's history.

2000

• February 6 – Tarja Halonen is elected the first female president of Finland.
• February 7 – Stipe Mesic is elected president of Croatia.
• March 26 – Vladimir Putin is elected President of Russia.
• July 30 – Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez is reelected with 59% of the vote.
• November 7 – Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected to the United States Senate, becoming the first First Lady of the United States to win public office.
• November 27 – Jean Chrétien is re-elected as Prime Minister of Canada, as the Liberal Party increases its majority in the House of Commons.

2001

• November 10 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard is elected to a third term.

2002

• May 5 – In the second round of the French presidential election, Jacques Chirac is reelected.
• July 27 – Helen Clark, leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, is re-elected in a landslide victory.
• October 27 – Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is elected President of Brazil.
• December 12 – Hans Enoksen is elected prime minister of Greenland

2004

• March 21 – Salvadoran presidential election, 2004: Antonio Saca is elected President of El Salvador (inaugurated June 1).
• May 10 – Philippine general election, 2004: Incumbent president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is elected for 6-year term.
• October 20 – Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono becomes the first directly elected President of Indonesia.
• October 31 – Leftist candidate Tabaré Vázquez is elected President of Uruguay.

2005

• January 9 – Mahmoud Abbas is elected to succeed Yasser Arafat as Palestinian Authority President.

2007

• May 6 – French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy wins the French presidential election, succeeding incumbent President Jacques Chirac 10 days later.

2008

• April 17 – Raila Odinga becomes the new Prime Minister of Kenya after the formation of a coalition government, ending the political crisis in Kenya.
• August 15 – Pushpa Kamal Dahal (known as Prachanda) is sworn in as the first Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, after the Nepalese monarchy was abolished in May.
• September 2 – Prime Minister of Japan Yasuo Fukuda resigns, less than a year after taking office following Shinzo Abe's resignation.
• September 15 – Following negotiations, President Robert Mugabe and opposition leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara sign a power-sharing deal, making Tsvangirai the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.
• September 24 – The Diet of Japan elects Taro Aso as the new Prime Minister of Japan
• February 19 – Fidel Castro announces his resignation as President of Cuba, effective February 24
• February 24 – Raúl Castro is unanimously elected as President of Cuba by the National Assembly
• March 29 – Presidential and parliamentary elections are held in Zimbabwe.
• September 6 – Asif Ali Zardari is elected President of Pakistan by the Electoral College of Pakistan
• September 21 – President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa resigns after accepting a call by the African National Congress
• September 25 – Kgalema Motlanthe is elected by the National Assembly of South Africa as the President of South Africa, succeeding Thabo Mbeki
• November 4 – United States presidential election, 2008: Barack Obama is elected the 44th President of the United States and Joe Biden is elected the 47th Vice President. *Barack Obama becomes the first African-American to be elected to the office

2009

• January 20 – Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th, and first African American, President of the United States.

......and so on.....

For particular reasons (some mentioned below in italics), editor DerbyCountyinNZ does not believe that there should be this referenced peice of information mentioned in the 2010 article: "June 24 – Julia Gillard is sworn in as the 27th Prime Minister of Australia. She is the first female Prime Minister in Australia's history"

...In the June section of 2010. The Reasons include:

• That was a federal election -- No it wasnt, the last federal election before June 24 was in 2007, and Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd from a leadership ballot conducted in June 2010, therefore becoming Australia's first female Prime Minister.
• "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election)." First women prime minister of Australia. An example from a previous year can include: Helen Clarke (1999 article) who became 2nd female PM in NZ, or Tarja Halonen (2000 article) who became the first female president of Finland.
• Not notable enough -- She just is the 49th most powerful women (in general) rated by Forbes 2010, in a world population of more than 6 billion. And Wiki Project Politics rates her as High Priority "Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin."

I would like to hear the People's opinions on this, as well as your reasons. Thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There's ample precedent to include Julia Gillard's installation as Australia's first PM. -danjel (talk to me) 08:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Recent Years guideline was established in the middle of of 2008 to deal with the huge amount of non-notable information that was overloading Year articles. The guideline relating to elections is

National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources.

You will notice that only one election from 2009 onwrds has been allowed to stand, and I for one have always disagreed with it's inclusion. Why? Because it's only claim to notability (if you exclude, as I do, that the US is more important than anywhere else) is that Obama is the first Afro-American US president. However interntaionally this is not significant as many other countries have had Afro-American presidents. The same goes for Julia Gillard, being the first woman PM in Australia is not internationally significant because many, many other countries have had woman PMs. As for earlier years:

• 2008: I thought the elections had been removed from that year at the time. I haven't had it on my watch list since mid-2009 so some may have crept back in. Feel free to remove any/all of them if you feel they aren't notable, I don't have time. I notice that 2008 is now back to 100k plus, the size it was in June before the cleanup started, it was <90k at the end of that year.
• 2007: The WP:RY guidelines were not rigorously applied to 2007, most of that established the guidelines were too busy cleaning up 2008 to deal with 2007 as well. It looks like no-one got around to dealing with 2007 properly until December 2009 when the size was reduced 107k to 73k simply by removing non-notable/domestic events. Only one election left? Sarkozy? Easily removed as not particularly significant. The article still contains far too many non-notable Deaths but it's extremely time consuming to check their notability against the guidelines, if someone else wants to have a go, good on them!
• 2006: I for one never even bothered to go back that far. As with 2007 it wasn't cleaned up until much later, May 2010 when it was trimmed from 114k to 60k. Result, no elections.
• 2005: Trimmed in December 2009 from 106k to 58k. Result one election. Not sure if a Palestinian election should be considered different from other elections, but I wouldn't object if someone removes it.
• 2004: Never been seriously trimmed, probably because it never got much above 60k. And it's probably at the limit of what could be considered a "Recent Year" (which I counsider to be a Year that was edited at the time rather than filled in after the fact. 4 elections left, none of which seems sufficiently notable to remain.
• 2003: Consisted of exactly 924 bytes as at 1/1/2003, so not a Recent Year, but looks like some minor cleanup has been carried out. Now 50k. Someone with time on their hands could probably remove more non-notable entries, but not the elections, as there aren't any.
• 2002 and earlier: Clearly not within the scope of WP:RY. Who has time to remove all the non-notable elections from ALL the years prior to 2003? Not me. Could I care less about the the NZ elections being included? Not even slightly. Should they be removed? Absolutely.

In summary: There are far too many elections to include in Recent Year articles. As with many other topics there is a a sub-article for them e.g. Electoral calendar 2010. Exceptional elections can be included. Is the election of a woman PM exceptional? No, there have been dozens worldwide since Sirimavo Bandaranaike was elected PM for Ceylon in 1960. Is the lection of an Afro-American President of the US notable? Only if you're American.

Of course any guideline can be rejected by consensus. In fact a clearly notable Death was included by a persistent individual who canvassed his fellow fans to get someone included who was so notable that no-one even mentioned his death in the Year article concerned until 6 weeks after he died. Perhaps you could try that? Oh, I see you've started. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well how about you remove ALL elections etc., reguardless if its ypur job or not before I add Julia Gillard to 2010, as what your are saying is totally unfair. And last time I checked it wasnt illegal to ask another user to take a read of an article. Oh and just remember I would like your opinion aswell as other Wikipefians opinions as well thank you. Who knows its possible you may have a conflict of interest barring the elections you don't want to be mentioned. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources" still included in the years recent changes -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that everyone participating here has this clear in their heads. Gillard did not become (Australia's first female) PM via an election. It happened through her party replacing it's parliamentary leader. The party she leads has since been re-elected, but she did not become PM at an election. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You will find in the examples above that there have been other PMs and Presidents that have had a change of people in power. In my June section i mentioned she was sworn in as PM not elected. Elected or Sworn in she is still the first female PM in Australias history. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But for how long does the world have to keep noticing "First female..." anythings? HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not female, and Julia Gillard has earned her spot in this article. She is not just any women but a leader of a country. Last time i checked I wasn't the one to first acknowledge a 'first women to be....' in these articles. Someone else did that. If other leaders have been mentioned there is no standard reason why Julia should not be mentioned, reguardless of what some editors opinions be. If they are a keep (other leaders) so will be Julia Gillard...it does not get any simpler than that. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else would like to raise their own opinion, before "June 24 – Julia Gillard is sworn in as the 27th Prime Minister of Australia. She is the first female Prime Minister in Australia's history" is added to the article?, I am patient and I would like people to voice their own opinions, thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you do I will revert it. Again. You have not achieved consensus to include, despite canvassing for support. I have provided clear reasons why it is not notable enough for inclusion. Your argument rests largely on WP:Other stuff exists, which is not only not considered a valid argument but, as I have pointed out, quite clearly I thought, that "other stuff" should not exist. I assume from your reluctance to remove it that leaving it their is an attempt to add weight to your argument. You seem to be implying that I should remove it. Why? What's stopping you from doing that? And as for claim of COI, there are editors I've had the misfortune to have to deal with who would claim that borders on breaching WP:Civil. I'm not sure whether this is a misunderstanding, misuse or deliberate misappliocation of this claim. Frankly it's BS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, one things for sure, is that your whole attitude towards this is really poor. If I was any other new editor, I would have had no problem with leaving the mess as it is. But trust me, following examples on other articles, when I stay on an article, I am usually dead locked on it until we come up with some sort of an agreement. Until then, please take it into consideration, that I do not plan on moving, as I will not give up on this article, and every time you revert (with no plausible excuse) I'll re-add the information. Also you seem to be removing my edit, when there are hundreds of other edits simmilar, on articles previous to 2010.

also there seems to be a little contradiction happening here: "As I said, 1999, and any year before 2004, does not come under the scope of the WP:RY guidelines...." It is to my understanding, and I am sorry If I mis-undertood, but you said that this removing of the elections etc. started in 2009 with the exception of Barack Obama's Innauguration....but in your own words above, it says that the WP:RY guidelines includes years 2004 and later...So who hasn't been removing these elections from 2004 to now? I mean, I just see around 20 different election related edits throughout 2004-2011... And If you were so unpleased with these election edits, why didnt you remove them? Please dont answer: "Not my job" because, after you reverted my edit on non valid reasons, the job simply dropped in your hands.

Also, I know I havent been a user on Wikipedia for as long as you have, but you may be fammiliar with this interesting article that i found on someones talk page WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus".

-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Derby, WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. MelbourneStar asked me to take a look at his line of argument and critique if necessary and I agree with what he said. It seems that you are displaying a fair amount of ownership here, which isn't acceptable.

You haven't addressed MelbourneStar's key arguments which are:

• Precedent, for example Barak Obama's election being the first African American to be elected to the presidency of the US;

I've already said that this shouldn't be included and tried to get it excluded on the grounds that he is not the first Afro-American head of state. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interest, it's of interest to Australians and to the female half of the planet;

Being of interest to Australians makes it notable in Australia, not the rest of the world. The female half of the planet find it interesting? Can you provide a citation for that? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fit with Guidelines, you're the only person saying it doesn't fit with WP:RY.

No I'm not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, does it detract from the article to add? No. It's got more than adequate coverage, being that it's been covered liberally on the Australian continent, and in other major news sources. BBC even includes her installment as PM in their relatively sparse timeline. -danjel (talk to me) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. The guidelines at [[WP:RY}} were reached in attempt to keep out the huge screeds of internationally non-notable entries that were being added to Recent Year articles. Why should there be an exception? That would just lead to more claims of "that's in why can't this be too" and we're almost back to square one. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted all the elections and political changes listed above except for 3 in 2008. Next. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt, but I have added the political events from above to the years: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004. DEFENCE: They do not apply to the guideline Wikipedia:Recent Years. The guideline applies to years 2005 to 2011, inclusive. – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs) 18:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

RY starts at 2005? Where does it say that? RY could, and probably should, apply from 2001 or 2002. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

^{also there seems to be a little contradiction happening here:} "As I said, 1999, and any year before 2004, does not come under the scope of the WP:RY guidelines...." It is to my understanding, and I am sorry If I mis-undertood, but you said that this removing of the elections etc. started in 2009 with the exception of Barack Obama's Innauguration....but in your own words above, it says that the WP:RY guidelines includes years 2004 and later...So who hasn't been removing these elections from 2004 to now? I mean, I just see around 20 different election related edits throughout 2004-2011... And If you were so unpleased with these election edits, why didnt you remove them? Please dont answer: "Not my job" because, after you reverted my edit on non valid reasons, the job simply dropped in your hands.

Also, I know I havent been a user on Wikipedia for as long as you have, but you may be fammiliar with this interesting article that i found on someones talk page WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus".

-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That was a part of this article Derby... Do you remember it? That is where I got my defence...

Consensus is not required unless the edit is challenged. After 12 hours none have been. ^{Of course either of you 2 could do that, but as 1 of you asked me to make them that would be rather petty.} DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You wrote the above... And I agree with it. Nobody has changed the page except a vandal (reverted) and two adders... After 2 days... Nothing...

Questions Derby?? – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 16:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You missed this quote (the most recent one) from a few lines below: "The limit of WP:RY has never been defined. I'd say it covers any years that were edited at the time rather than after the fact. The earliest edits I can find are from November 2001 so I suppose the limit should be 2001/02 although wiki really didn't really get going until 2003/04 so that might be a better cutoff. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)". As for your reasons for including that material back in, why was that? Because they were actually notable, or just making some WP:Point? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not making a WP:Point. That stuff was in there and won't be reverted until you come along there... There are no rules of WP:RY being followed in the years 1999 to 2004. Compare those years to 2011. And I don't mean the bits that didn't happen, (September-December) I mean the bits that happened already (January-August). Well Derby, none are followed... – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 14:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And when I come to it, EVERY year article of 1980-2009 have not followed WP:RY that much as 2010 and 2011. In those two years a whole lot of content was marked unimportant compared to 1980-2009... Any questions? – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 18:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as has been pointed out elsewhere (more than once) the guidelines at WP:RY were initially established to deall with the bloated nature of 2008. It has been applied to earlier articles, but the furhter back you go the less rigorously it has been applied. It appears few of the regular editors that had been doing the cleaning up doing so actively these days. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be, nor should that be an excuse to add material which does not meet the WP:RY guidelines (for those that are aware of them. Secondly, removing non-notable material from any Year article does not require that that follow the WP:RY guideline, certainly if that Year is not a Recent Year (for which we have no specific definition anyway, yet. Some material is clearly not internationally notable as required for inclusion in any Year article. I've even had to remove material so trivial it wouldn't qualify for entry in a Year in *State (of the US)* article. There are reasons why such material has been added, but I'm not going to waste my time repeating them, again, I'm too busy in the real world and have a long wiki to-do list already. I can only hope that other editors with a suitable understanding of notability will look at the Recent Years and those on the borderline. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus is not required unless the edit is challenged." (by DerbyCountyinNZ) It hasn't been for the past week. Noone is arguing about my change in those years (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004). "As I said, 1999, and any year before 2004, does not come under the scope of the WP:RY guidelines...." (by MelbourneStar☆) – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 14:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not required unless the edit is challenged. After 12 hours none have been. Of course either of you 2 could do that, but as 1 of you asked me to make them that would be rather petty. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(a) We're challenging those edits here. (b) It seems that such changes have been rejected before, as you raised in User_talk:DerbyCountyinNZ#Prime_Minister_Julia_Gillard_on_the_2010_article.. (c) It seems to me that you did it for the sake of a WP:POINT. (d) WP:DRNC. This seems to be a breach of wikiquette.

I've demonstrated notability by pointing to mentions in reliable sources across the planet. There seems to be notability as the google search results I've given above satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Notability_(events) quite amply. I'll ask again if you seriously think that this seriously detracts from the article? You can't honestly say that it does. Ask yourself if your position is because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. -danjel (talk to me) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this true Derby, you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate to have to ask, but did you have consensus to do that? -danjel (talk to me) 06:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not required unless the edit is challenged. After 12 hours none have been. Of course either of you 2 could do that, but as 1 of you asked me to make them that would be rather petty. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(a) We're challenging those edits here. (b) It seems that such changes have been rejected before, as you raised in User_talk:DerbyCountyinNZ#Prime_Minister_Julia_Gillard_on_the_2010_article.. (c) It seems to me that you did it for the sake of a WP:POINT. (d) WP:DRNC. This seems to be a breach of wikiquette.

I've demonstrated notability by pointing to mentions in reliable sources across the planet. There seems to be notability as the google search results I've given above satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Notability_(events) quite amply. I'll ask again if you seriously think that this seriously detracts from the article? You can't honestly say that it does. Ask yourself if your position is because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. -danjel (talk to me) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope we get an answer soon, or I guess Ill have to do some reverting, as well as adding... -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RY has said they shouldn't be there for some time, but I don't know how "recent" WP:RY applies to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The limit of WP:RY has never been defined. I'd say it covers any years that were edited at the time rather than after the fact. The earliest edits I can find are from November 2001 so I suppose the limit should be 2001/02 although wiki really didn't really get going until 2003/04 so that might be a better cutoff. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that applies (or should apply) only to elections that aren't particularly interesting. I think, from the list above, Prachanda's election as PM of Nepal (i.e., first PM after monarchy dissolved) and Obama's election (first African American President) are interesting enough to include. Gillard's election as first female PM of Australia is also interesting. -danjel (talk to me) 07:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaagh. Edit cdonflict! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's try again. Now that I have removed all but 3 of the Election or similar entries we need to consider 2 options:

• One of the arguments that this should be included is that there were many other equally (non-)notable Election type entries since 1999 as listed above. They have now all been removed, as requested, except for 3. If this entry is to be considered equivalent to an Election, as it involves a change of state/government leader, is it as notable as the 3 that remain: The first election of a head of state in a country which recently disestablished it's monarchy (Nepal); the standing down of a dictator of 50 years standing in a country whose dictatorship led to isolation by and from a large proportion of nations worldwide (Cuba); or the internationally discredited election result in a country run by a virtual dictator in which hundreds have been killed and thousands forced out (Zimbabwe)? I don't see how the smooth, if sudden, transition of a party leader who is also the PM is anywhere near as significant as any of those 3.
• Is the fact that this about a country having it's first female leader of government notable? Not any more. There have been a considerable number of female government leaders and elected heads of state in the last 50 years. They are now so common as to be longer notable. They will always make the news because the news reports anything and everything, but that doesn't make them especially notable. And the guidleines at [[WP:RY}} require that any election (or similar) be particularly notable to merit inclusion. This is not sufficently noytable.

So unless/until there is a clear consensus otherwise this proposed entry should not be included. There is no such consensus, yet. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

She is the first female leader, of Australia. Australia has never had a female leader. She is the first prime minister in 90 years to have been born overseas...last prime minister to do that was William Hueghs (PM 1915-1922). Off course there is no consenses with deleting that infomation on those articles, you should have asked. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

She is the first female leader, of Australia. Australia has never had a female leader. She is the first prime minister (of Australia) in 90 years to have been born overseas...all of which makes this notable in Australia, not internationally. As I mentioned above, no I don't need consensus to make a change, "unless it is challenged". 24 hours later and not one has been challenged. All of which is a moot point as WP:Other stuff exists invalidates their existence as an argument for including this entry anyaway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well news just in, she is notable internationally... -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

I hate to have it come down to a matter of !vote, but there's 2 to 1 for the inclusion and we've waited for a week and a half for further opinions one way or the other.

I'm very worried that you, Derby, acted against consensus and to make a WP:POINT in your removal of the other political points. I think that those decisions should be subject to some review. But I'll leave that aside for other people to deal with. -danjel (talk to me) 00:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2 to 1 for inclusion? I thought it was fairly clear HiLo48 was against, he has said as much here. My removals are perfectly inline with the guidelines at WP:RY AND seeing as the incorrect use of WP:Other stuff was being used as an argument it was necessary at this time. In fact, as I have pointed out earlier, removing those entries was actually not what I consider effective use of my time on here, I would have had no hesitation in removing them earlier if they had been on my watchlist, as I have done on those Year articles I was watching. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not convinced that being the first female PM makes this a globally notable event. It is, however, made a little more notable by the fact that her arrival in the job was not via a normal election, but only a little more notable because it was all part of the normal Westminster system. Given all the female state Premiers, it really was inevitable that Australia would have a female PM one day. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

^ Tell that to all the other editors that mentioned other female prime ministers/ presidents etc.

...Looks like I wasn't the only one to add them. If 5 or 10 or even 20 editors let PMs/Presidents have mention in the years articlse, why not you? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As with masny other topics there are many editors who are unaware of the Recent Year Guidelines. How best to make users aware of them is being discussed here. They have also not, yet, been applied to all the articles which might come under the "Recent years" scope. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Derby, your removals are based on an interpretation of WP:RY, not the actual letter of the policy. -danjel (talk to me) 00:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my removals are in line with the precise intention of the guidelines: "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country". The issue here is whether a first female Prime Minisiter represents a significant change. I, and others, don't think it does any more. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Usually" "Significant change in country" , wonderful words. You and others? well news flash there, Derby, as you can see I am not the first to add a new or first female leader to a years article. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion, like mine, is largely irrelevant. You need to find reliable sources from outside Australia telling us all that it's significant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Found heaps. Her replacement of Rudd definitely fulfills notability requirements.

Honestly, does it detract from the article to add? No. It's got more than adequate coverage, being that it's been covered liberally on the Australian continent, and in other major news sources. BBC even includes her installment as PM in their relatively sparse timeline. -danjel (talk to me) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

-danjel (talk to me) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I chose my words carefully above. I said you need sources "telling us all that it's significant". Just saying "first female..." doesn't necessarily do that. My perspective here is that for most of my life there was a very obvious barrier to a black person becoming President in America. Any such barrier for women in Australia was always going to be overcome in an evolutionary way. Obama's election was more revolutionary. The irrational campaigns still ongoing against him (birthers, etc) show that. There is no equivalent ongoing against Gillard in Australia. (Just the usual party stuff) HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are over 200 nations. I think it would just be silly to record the first female leader in every one of those as a notable event. Females have made it. Stop treating their success as something weird. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As an Australian Prime Minister? No they have not, thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• This article isn't about first female prime ministers of any nation, it's about internationally notable events in 2010. Accordingly, we would need sources to show that her appointment is internationally significant in 2010. That's the line we need to take. Rodhullandemu 01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Internationally significant then. Well how is that determined? Bu one person or by a vote?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's open to debate, but as regards "year" articles are concerned, WP:RY is our guideline. Rodhullandemu 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu maybe take a look at Danjel's latest point above ^^ where he shows international sources. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, if they were properly formatted; but they aren't. I'm not going to make work for myself, when it is up to other people to justify inclusion here. Enthusiast, I may be, but slave I am not. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Each of them demonstrates coverage of her taking the PM's office across the planet. The links are clickable, what do you mean by properly formatted? -danjel (talk to me) 05:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Then obviously don't make presumptions or opinions, if you're not willing to do some investigating yourself. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A polite suggestion to you as a relatively new editor is to have a good read of WP:Assume good faith. Wikipedia will be better if we all try to be nice to one another. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All due respect Hilo48, don't need the advice, I am not really new, been on here for 2mnths+ thats enough for me. You can take what I said above out of context, your discretion. Or you could understand that if someone is going to put their 2 cents into a discussion, they should have evidence to support it. I want to get along with everyone...Obviously sometimes things happen and we cant. I still try my best...but thats all I can do now. Thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude. I question whether it's notable even to Australians, but it doesn't have trans-national significance. I'm not convinced Obama should be allowed in 2008 or 2009, under WP:RY, but I haven't taken the time to remove him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we can all share our different opinions to eachother. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

International Notable reasons to why I will be adding Julia Gillard back into the 2010 article:

• First female Leader of the nation
• First leader to have been born overseas since Billy Hughes (PM 1915-1923)
• 1 of 4 Prime Minister's to have been given the privilege of Adressing the US Congress.
• She challenged her own boss (former) PM Kevin Rudd for leadership, on the night of 23rd of June. She was sworn in as the 27th PM the very next day.
• Her Carbon Tax
• Julian Assange

International Sources:

• Sydeny Morning Herald - "The news that Julia Gillard has become Australia's first female prime minister is making headlines across the world."..."with American news channel CNN broadcasting her maiden speech live."
• BBC News US & Canada
• The Telegraph UK
• The Telegraph UK
• msnbc (US)
• USAtoday
• USAtoday
• CNN
• CNN
• NZ Embassy
• Stuff.co.nz

WP:RY "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources. Regular and ordinary shifts in power within the United Nations and European Union are also not sufficiently notable.Most legislation passed in the year will not qualify unless it is of international significance."

I have demonstrated her significance and have provided International sources...all in one breath. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude While she might be a first in Australia, she is not a first around the world. I also don't think that Australians themselves care that much that she is a women or not, I'd like to believe she was elected for reasons other than her gender.
  

Having said that, I think we should remove a lot of the older entries, I have always maintained that having an entry listing Obama's elections and inauguration was ridiculous.
Because he, and others, are listed in various year articles we will keep getting requests to list other world leaders.
While I agree with the current year policy, (that suggests we should exclude her entry), the fact that we have many leaders listed for been the first black, women, Jewish, tall, blond etc, (or simply for been American), makes it very hard to tell an Australian national why we cannot list their leader.
How can you tell an Australian that we cannot list their leader for been the first woman when we consistently list the American leader for no reason other than their nationality, (and their inauguration that no one outside the US really cares about). FFMG (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Julia Gillard will remain until Barack Obama and any other leader is removed. Currently there is know valid reason to remove Julia Gillard, as it follows the WP:RY policy. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And we're are not talking about a national election. June 24 wasnt the National Election. She challenged Kevin Rudd in leadership, and she won. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'in other words', two wrongs don't make a right.

I clearly said she should be excluded, but I also gave my own personal opinion as to why you and others might feel that she shouldn't. FFMG (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words = My words before yours...I have added her in according to WP:RY Guidlines and Policy. If you have an issue with that change the policy. If I still am having an issue with this, I will have to take a dive head-first to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because what you all are suggesting (doing) is keeping some Leaders and excluding others. That is not how this is going to work out -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude – I also do not see either a clear movement to add her or that it is policy per WP:RY. This is a local event that has no international significance. Being the first of something locally is not necessarily internationally significant. Ranking as one of the most powerful women in the world is also not significant nor necessarily notable. Per WP:RY, "That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is insufficient ground for its inclusion." Additionally, WP:RY is a minimum, not a tipping point for inclusion. This is better suited for a "Year in" article. ttonyb (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"To an individual editor..." No just to the 11 million + who voted for her. I have provided all that there is needed to provide. Remove Barack Obama before you remove Gillard, or we will be here till who knows when. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barring out the above, I have decided that it is best that I won't continue to add Julia Gillard to the 2010 article, reguardless of what I may think. On the other hand, I will be removing all Prime Ministers/ Presidents from the Years articles. That includes President Barack Obama, just because he is the first African-American President, does not make him any more significant than other world leaders. There are 54 countries located in Africa, they have African Leaders too. He can be added to the 2008 in politics article. Last but not least: Sorry for any inconvenience. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are 100% correct regarding Barack Obama, as some of us have been trying to point out since before his election. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! We have finally come up with an agreement! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

DerbyCountyNZ acting like he owns these articles is no justification for not including Gillard and removing Obama from 2008. As that would be one of the top events listed in reliable sources that round up 2008, such a removal would be a farce. MelbourneStar1, do it again and I'll report you to WP:ANI for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Fences&Windows 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.norwegian.com/en/landingssider/cancellations-due-to-volcanic-ash-in-the-air/
  • In Disaster tourism on 2011-03-17 11:26:34, 404 File not found
  • In 2010 on 2011-06-18 11:48:09, 404 File not found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-flotilla-20100531,0,1839736.story
  • In Gaza flotilla raid on 2011-03-19 19:34:32, 404 Not Found
  • In IHH (Turkish NGO) on 2011-04-23 18:43:46, 404 Not Found
  • In IHH (Turkish NGO) on 2011-04-24 04:53:02, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 on 2011-06-18 11:48:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Date format

I believe the dominant date format in this article is mdy, per the tag (before today), and the dominant access and archive date format is ymd. I could be wrong, but the references seem to be fairly well mixed, and there is one full mdy date in the text, in addition to the date headers being "md". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100821063035/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/15/bloomberg1376-L0WS531A74E9-1.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/15/bloomberg1376-L0WS531A74E9-1.DTL

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110429191013/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_kyrgyzstan;_ylt=Api9XZ8yeOTfejBWw3re1JH9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTMyaDJuaDlrBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjE2L2FzX2t5cmd5enN0YW4EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDa3lyZ3l6YXJteXRy to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_kyrgyzstan;_ylt=Api9XZ8yeOTfejBWw3re1JH9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTMyaDJuaDlrBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjE2L2FzX2t5cmd5enN0YW4EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDa3lyZ3l6YXJteXRy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110430033033/http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-5422309/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uZXd2aXNpb24uY28udWcv to http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-5422309/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uZXd2aXNpb24uY28udWcv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114182637/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_earthquake to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_earthquake
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114043429/http://www.interior.gob.cl/filesapp/listado_fallecidos_desaparecidos_27Feb.pdf to http://www.interior.gob.cl/filesapp/listado_fallecidos_desaparecidos_27Feb.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418203624/http://www.norwegian.com/en/landingssider/cancellations-due-to-volcanic-ash-in-the-air/ to http://www.norwegian.com/en/landingssider/cancellations-due-to-volcanic-ash-in-the-air/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_INDONESIA_VOLCANO?SITE=VASTR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427034631/http://bnpb.go.id/irw/berita.asp?id=119 to http://bnpb.go.id/irw/berita.asp?id=119

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091106052129/http://gulfnews.com/business/property/uae/official-opening-of-iconic-burj-dubai-announced-1.523471 to http://gulfnews.com/business/property/uae/official-opening-of-iconic-burj-dubai-announced-1.523471
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2010%2F04%2F15%2Fbloomberg1376-L0WS531A74E9-1.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703866704575224873880379734.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0%2C8599%2C1987568%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826021142/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Thief-Steals-Paintings-In-Paris-Art-Heist-Valued-at-Five-Million-Euros-From-Modern-Art-Museum/Article/201005315635454?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15635454_Thief_Steals_Paintings_In_Paris_Art_Heist_Valued_at_Five_Million_Euros_From_Modern_Art_Museum to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Thief-Steals-Paintings-In-Paris-Art-Heist-Valued-at-Five-Million-Euros-From-Modern-Art-Museum/Article/201005315635454?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15635454_Thief_Steals_Paintings_In_Paris_Art_Heist_Valued_at_Five_Million_Euros_From_Modern_Art_Museum
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-flotilla-20100531%2C0%2C1839736.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary%2C_2004-2010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no Births section here?

Is there a specific reason why there is no Births section in this article? If there is no specific reason I can try to add it based on the Category:2010 Births page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetzold (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia user born in 2010. Why doesn't it have it? WindowsMeRules (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)