Jump to content

Talk:2010: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 139: Line 139:
:...which it has, so I guess it should be added unless there are further objections. {{#if:DerbyCountyinNZ|<span style="background-color:red;color:lime;">DerbyCountyinNZ</span>|<span style="color:lime;">red</span>}} <sup> ([[User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/DerbyCountyinNZ|Contribs]])</sup> 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:...which it has, so I guess it should be added unless there are further objections. {{#if:DerbyCountyinNZ|<span style="background-color:red;color:lime;">DerbyCountyinNZ</span>|<span style="color:lime;">red</span>}} <sup> ([[User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/DerbyCountyinNZ|Contribs]])</sup> 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


:I believe that we need to reach a consensus on the notability on air disasters. I personally feel that 100+ is a significant loss of life and thus should be included.--[[Special:Contributions/92.17.10.197|92.17.10.197]] ([[User talk:92.17.10.197|talk]]) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:I believe that we need to reach a consensus on the notability on air disasters. I personally feel that 100+ is a significant loss of life and thus should be included. --[[User:AycliffeAngel|AycliffeAngel]] ([[User talk:AycliffeAngel|talk]]) 20:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:01, 22 May 2010


Possible inclusion of Icelandic volanic eruption in "March events"

Any comments? --AycliffeAngel (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only comment I can think of is that you haven't really said enough for me to comment on. Why do you think that this should (or shouldn't--you haven't really said either way) be included? Does the eruption have its own article? Is there something particularly notable or unusual about it? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This volcanic eruption was more than likely the precursor to the volcanic ash cloud which is now causing chaos to European air travel. Perhaps it is too late to include it now, however one must look back with hindsight to see missed events. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish air crash deaths

I've just reverted 5 Polish people from the Deatrhs section on the grounds that if they hadn't died in the air crash they wouldn't have been notable enough. Opinions? (Sorry for brevity, pressed for time!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK air space closure

On the 15th of April all UK airspace was closed due to a volcanic ash cloud from Iceland causing safety concerns for all aircraft entering and exiting UK airspace. Thousands of people have been left stranded and it is the first time ever that the UK has closed it's airspace completely. Perhaps this is notable enough to be included in events. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is the only country to have a total closure but there are other airports in Europe that have closed and flights from as far away as New Zealand have been affected. This makes it a multi-national event. I'm just not sure it's notable enough, yet. Maybe we should wait a few days to see what the repercussions are? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is mater of definition, most airports are/were closed in Sweden, Belgium, France, Scotland but they did not call close the entire airspace down but they might as we have called it that.
You pretty much cannot fly over Northern France, (and that cuts a big chunk of Europe because of it).
The UK did nothing really more than most other European countries. Because of their geographic location they were amongst the first, (probably after Scotland and maybe Ireland).
Having said that, I think it is fairly notable, it doesn't happen very often that a could from a volcano brings so many country to an aerial standstill FFMG (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (now). The entry is now per Europe rather than just UK which makes sense. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Reggie Faust, 16 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

July 11, 2010 - Total Solar Eclipse over the South Pacific

September 7, 2010 - At 12:10PM, the Moon is at its closest point to North America for the year at 351,731.7km. New moon begins at 5:18PM.

September 8, 2010 - Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown ending the Hebrew year 5770. According to the Bible Code, an earthquake will "destroy" Los Angeles in this year.

December 21, 2010 - Total Lunar Eclipse over North America

Reggie Faust (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The software Starry Night Pro Plus v. 6.2.3 and NASA's website (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OH2010.html#SE2010Jul22T) was used for the astronomical information, and the Bible Code aired on the History Channel in 2005.

 Done - The solar eclipse was added.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. For the lunar information, it is not a given that it is considered notable enough for inclusion in the year's article. For example, lunar eclipses appear in 2009 but not in 2007. Also, for the Rosh Hashanah information, please provide a more complete citation for the Bible Code program (see WP:CITE); it's also not clear whether there should be a Major Religious Holidays section like in 2009, or just a Holidays section like 2007. Please discuss these changes on the talk page to establish a consensus before requesting another edit. --Darkwind (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the entry. Solar eclipses are not intrinsically notable enough for this article. A previous discussion in this regard is here. This will need consensus before it is added. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Noriega

Does it really matter that he was extradited? His importance ended over two decades ago. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, I even considered removing the entry but then forgot all about it! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Leak

Should we write about the oil leak here?

Zelderu Maryoto (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the oil leak off the US coast? I ask because oil spills are sadly all too common. This spill is not, (yet), the biggest spill either.
So I don't think we should include that entry here, maybe 2010 in the United States. FFMG (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L'homme qui marche

Sorry to tell you but this is no longer the most expensive work ever sold at auction. Nude, Green Leaves and Bust surpassed it today by about 1.6 million. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Philippine Election

Since this article is locked, kindly include the 2010 election in the Philippines which will be held tomorrow. 112.201.254.9 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons it's locked. WP:RY suggests that, unless this is the first election in the Philippines, or historic for some other reason, it shouldn't be listed here; only in 2010 in the Philippines and Electoral calendar 2010. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless of course it is the US election, for some weird reasoning that I have yet to understand, that country can have its, very predictable, election listed, (as well as the result and the inauguration). FFMG (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to remove US elections from 2016 and 2020, and have been reverted. Oh, well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tried a while ago to understand the logic with such blatant double standards.
Not only is the election listed, but the inauguration is as well, some of the reasons given at the time were comical at best. If you dare add any other country, (Russia, France, UK), then it is removed in a flash.
I've been against the inclusion of the US election and inauguration from the start unfortunately too many users seem to think that because those events are in the US they should be treated differently from the rest of the world. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the recent UK elections as an example, the first hung parliament since 1974, even that is not as important as the US president taking a stroll down the street every 4 years. FFMG (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd probably remove every American election and inauguration except for Obama's, or I would at least set Obama's as the standard--e.g., exclude unless international notability can be demonstrated by a WP article (perhaps with some additional qualifications) about the international notability of the event. Obama, by the way, has at least four such articles: International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008; International media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election; International opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008; and (for good measure) Canada and the 2008 United States presidential election. But without something like that, US elections and inaugurations probably do not belong in these articles. Even as a politically active American, I find most US elections boringly predictable (e.g., when only two political parties, each four years, have any chance of winning), and I certainly see nothing inherently "includable" about them for these articles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be listed in 2010 in the Philippines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has been added; however, is there enough international significance to keep it? ttonyb (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the BBC are reporting that there were nine nationalities aboard, including "dozens" of Dutch citizens and "at least one British national". So there's a European as well as an African perspective; whether that makes it suitable or not I don't have a view on. It does seem to be, sadly, one of those things that happen fairly frequently. Perhaps this crash is more internationally notable because there was a survivor (a Dutch child)? TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that an non-domestic plane crash with over 100 deaths AND multiple nationalities should qualify for inclusion. If there were more than half a dozen such events every year then I would be less inclined to include ones such as this one. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of 2010 Commonwealth Games in "October events"

117.254.152.30 (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose adding the start of 2010 Commonwealth Games on October 3rd 2010.

There was a prior discussion of this here. As per WP:Recent years the only sporting events considered to be of sufficient global notablity for inclusion in recent Year articles are the Olympic Games and Football World Cup. Other sporting events can be included in 2010 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

I don't understand why we can't list Erica Blasbergs death on May 9th under 2010 deaths. She was a famous golfer. Jdcrackers (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Blasberg does not have any non-english articles, maybe she should be included in 2010 in the United States rather. FFMG (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on your talk page, to be included in this article she needs to be internationally notable, which she isn't as evidenced by the lack of non-English wiki articles on her, and certainly not before her death except in golf circles which is why she should be in 2010 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add the India Air Crash to this year's events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.229.135 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely unless the death toll exceeds 100. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...which it has, so I guess it should be added unless there are further objections. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we need to reach a consensus on the notability on air disasters. I personally feel that 100+ is a significant loss of life and thus should be included. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]