From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Found This[edit]

What about the international year of the reef? sure this would be referenced on the main page? (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The IYOR does not have an article dedicated to it (hint hint), otherwise I would agree that it needs to be put on the top of the '08 article. See International Coral Reef Initiative for info. StevePrutz (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rampaging Munchkins will dominate all life on Earth for a period of 2 weeks. I didn't remove it though, I think its funny. thats because it is funny lol. Flying Monkeys will then take over once the autocracy of the munchkins is crushed

Unnoteworthy events[edit]

Removed item referring to a user graduating high school

Removed item referring to a user graduating from college.-- 03:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Predicted Events?!?[edit]

I believe that 2008 being the year of the Rat is not a predicted event, but is an ACTUAL event. Maybe we should have a section for those sorts of things...--CaseKid 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential records[edit]

Why is Tony Blair potentially passing Margaret Thatcher's record encyclopedic or notable, but Queen Elizabeth II passing Queen Victoria's record not? It's a moot point which is more likely to happen in practice. PatGallacher 16:05, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Where is that Blair/Thatcher bit listed? If it's a "Tony Blair's Labour Party wins its Nth straight election, passing Thatcher and the Tories" reference, then we can ditch the Thatcher portion of that entry. IMHO, though, noting when a particular monarch outlasts a predecessor is neither encyclopedic nor notable for a year/date article, and it's especially unencyclopedic and non-notable if it's still conditional. - jredmond 16:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I hesitate to point this out to you, but it's under November for this year. In a way this is less notable, since Thatcher's record is purely a 20th century one, not all time like Queen Victoria's. PatGallacher 16:48, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that "longest-serving monarch" or "longest-serving PM" or "longest-serving pope" is notable enough for these articles. Perhaps after the fact, one could note that "Queen Victoria reigned longer than any other British monarch" in the article on Queen Victoria or "Franklin D. Roosevelt served more terms than any other US President" in the FDR article. In a year or date article, though, it's just clutter IMHO, and adding the conditional "if she reigns that long" makes it even less useful. - jredmond 17:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
It's there as a good indication of when Blair may choose to resign - he will want to be PM for longer than Thatcher was, but also want to give his successor time to prepare for the next General Election (expected in June 2009), so the end of November 2008 seems like the perfect time for him to step down.

It's Feburary 2008 now and we have Gordorn Brown for PM for nearly a year now just like to point tht out :). Pathfinder2006 (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Tom Cruise will denounce the periodic table"? Is that a joke? I don't get it... Xaque 19:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm removing it. If someone puts it back, please explain yourself.


Isn't wikipedia not a crystal ball, so shouldn't predictions not be here? Quentin Pierce 05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

These predictions are made from observed phenomena, mathematical calculation, or formal exchange of information by a respected medium. These predictions are not akin to those by someone such as an astrologer, but via the aforementioned. The term "predictions" is used due to the fact that such claims are still not entirely certain--thus leaving an acute degree for deviation. --Marsbound2024 00:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lushass 3[edit]

The reference to "Lushass 3" (see former versions of the article), a fake which doesn't exist, as created on February 10, 2006, and was deleted on May 9, 2006. That's one of the longest-lasting vandalisms ever. Or not? Do you know vandalisms that lasted much longer? -- 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cervical Cancer[edit]

Is there not a vaccine today? Ctm18584 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Yes, Gardasil. ☻I am only here because the Vulcans want to know when they should come☻ (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a vaccine that CAN PREVENT most cases of cervical cancer, but to my knowledge there is no vaccine that actually cures cervical cancer. Griggs08 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a vaccine for some condition, then of course it can prevent the condition but cannot cure it. If there were a cure, then it would be called a cure, not a vaccine. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

just a sec...[edit]

This post should be labeled as predicting future events, just like the articles on 2009, 2015, etc. Why isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billchu13 (talkcontribs) 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, this problem is solved since it's now 2008 :)

September 13 2008 Hong Kong tsunami[edit]

I have deleted this entry as this is untrue and not referenced. I found a clip on you-tube posted presumably by the same user saying this will happen. No such prediction of this so called earthquake is listed anywhere on the Internet nor on any official governmental websites. Suspiciously, the user possibly just want to create some degree of panic in order for people to click on his clip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

number of days[edit]

Sorry if this seems like an unnecessary post/request, but is it possible to request the total number of days a year has (meaning the total number of Mondays, Tuesdays ... Sundays) ?

365 days in a year- get a calendar and do the math. You can even use a calculator and repost telling us all. ☻I am only here because the Vulcans want to know when they should come☻ (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is 2008, so the year has 366 days. --AxG @ talk 03:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Un-manned human spaceflight?[edit]

In the section of unknown dates, the following exists:

"The Indian Space Research Organization plans an un-manned human spaceflight."

un-manned human spaceflight seems to contradict itself (a human spaceflight that has no people?), can someone verify whether or not this is correct? Cs1kh 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they plan to send up a woman?   ;-)   Chris the speller (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup, 2014[edit]

In the unknown date section,

   "FIFA will announce the host country of the 2014 FIFA World Cup."

FIFA will announce the World Cup host on 30 October 2007, soon after Brazil presents it's bid to the FIFA Executive Committee. Source: Brazil takes one more step towards 2014, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A - Magic (talkcontribs) 23:50, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Ash Wednesday February 6[edit]

Is a citation really needed to account for Ash Wednesday? It's a difficult one to dispute if Easter is fixed (and not requiring a citation)... just count back 40 days and you've got it. Geoff Riley 15:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously not that simple because it is actually 46 days before Easter.BrainyBroad (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ST Movie?[edit]

Does the Star Trek movie count?

☻I am only here because the Vulcans want to know when they should come☻ (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Something has gone wrong and the February title isn`t showing at all. Please, fix it. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we saying it's 2008[edit]

As soon as one time zone has it's new year (as it seems it is on the moment) wouldn't it be beter to do GMT new year? RT | Talk 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by UTC time, so in about one hour it'll be 2008. -- RattleMan 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but the article states that's it's already begun RT | Talk 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not anymore. :) -- RattleMan 23:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yay, 7 mins remaining RT | Talk 23:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't using a particular timezone to determine the current year a violation of WP:NPOV?  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Not when the Wikipedia software uses it for a lot of things (watchlist, contribs, default sig). :) -- RattleMan 07:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


A few hours ago, I removed this information about 2008 usually being pronounced two thousand and eight. It was re-added, and I re-removed it. Please do not add it again without citing a reliable source for that information. WODUP 00:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Add HP6 or delete Indiana Jones IV[edit]

Since the release Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is listed as one of the events then I believe that the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince should also be listed, since it will surely draw just as much buzz or more and is extremely likely to be the highest grossing film of 2008 (at least worldwide). Otherwise then I think that Indiana Jones IV should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Move both to 2008 in film? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Okay, who is putting large phallic images in this article? I can't seem to find a way to remove them. -- Denelson83 05:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Found one of them in {{Roman}}. Kesac (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Other was in {{Future}}. Kesac (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Geelong FC winning AFL Grand Final[edit]

Obviously you cannot say they will win it when it's months away. --splashmo (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the season hasn't even started yet. I've removed the prediction added in these edits. Graham87 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone change the September entry regarding the Mets. The last regular season game is scheduled for September, but if they make they playoffs, then they will play at Shea Stadium through October. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist comment[edit]

Can't help but notice that there is a racist comment flashing on this article. Can't seem to find it to remove it. Anyone have any better luck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talkcontribs) 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to but couldnt, no history of the edit pretty much prevented me doing it tho. Pathfinder2006 22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it say "HAY THAR (n-word)" or something like that? Last night a vandal placed ([1], [2]) that comment on two templates that are transcluded on this page and other years'. It was reverted shortly after. Either your cache is outdated from last night, or another bout of vandalism occured. I can't see it right now, but I saw it when it happened last night. -- RattleMan 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


We should not post every person who has an article from the list of Deaths in 2008. I believe the minimum standard to include someone in the 2008 article should be if they have multiple articles in different languages, two is even enough. Except for the rare exceptions, like if the person who died only has one article in English and in no other language, but their death is receiving lots of media attention, then we can list them on here. --Tocino 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Year of Languages[edit]

The year 2008 has been officially declared "year of languages" by the United Nations. In my opinion this should be mentioned in the short list of "year-of"-s. As a source the website should be mentioned, an oficial UN press release. I cannot add this myself, since I dindn't have an account yet on the English version of Wikipedia. I have had acounts in the Dutch and Esperanto version for quite some time, but appearantly Wikipedia is still not quite without linguistic borders, one of the aims of the year of languages. Nico niko 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

see for my user page at Esperanto Wikipedia.


Can somebody please add the launch of Chandrayaan I (the first Indian lunar orbiter) and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (robotic exploration of the moon being the first objective of the Vision for Space Exploration)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttockhat (talkcontribs) 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Election[edit]

Someone is really cute. Rather than saying November 4 is the day of the US Presidential Elections, they said it is the day Ron Paul is elected 44th President of the US. Removing it and placing a corrected edit for the day. Xen 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story[edit]

This is to bring awareness of the article about the film Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story (to be released in 2008), so that someone can decide about linking to it somewhere. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That (linking to it) would be self-referential. We don't treat Wikipedia in any special manner, just because this encyclopedia happens to be Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


I added photographs to this article, User:Arthur Rubin removed them. Other year articles have images. Do we need a discussion before adding photographs to this article? Anybody have a good reason for not having photographs on this article? If not I'll put them back sometime in the next few days. Edward (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You also added clearly non-notable events. Photos may be OK (if Public Domain; "fair use", at least the Wikipedia restriction, is unlikely to apply.). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Man's Reign[edit]

I found this statement last week in this article. Do you think it is really true? I would only be 16. I am not being forced to be killed because of world turmoil. (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Weinland, a minister in the Church of God claiming to have been made a prophet by God in 1997, and author of The Prophesied End-Time and 2008—God’s Final Witness claims man's reign on earth will end in late 2008 in the latter of his two published works.

unknown dates[edit]

I remeber on the aol news that a sattilite will crash to earth.shouldn't this be under the unknown dates section in this article? (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It said late February or early we could note that it may happen in that timeframe in the unknow section. I can add it in if you want me to. (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

why is UK singled out in the "year of" list?[edit]

all the other "year of" entries are international, UK and Australia are the only countries with the national year of reading and scout listed. Are they more important than the other countries, or should we add another couple of hundred entries to the list? 22:25, February 18, 2008 Anatoly.bourov

I don't think they are inportant enogh to list on the page. I will remove and see what happens Jons63 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


How come there is no pictures on this article, last year article has pictures. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because no one hasn't added any. I added some. Enjoy! -- Taku (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Major religious holidays[edit]

Is there any reason why this section exists? Why are religious holidays more significant than, say, secular holidays? Religion is nothing special. -- Taku (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question[edit]

Should the US primaries really be included in this article? I'm american and all, but it really doesn't affect the world, just my nation. I think it is noteworthy to say those who have dropped out of the race, but this article seems a little cluttered with United States election primaries. I know we are all happy Bush isn't going to be in there longer, but I do not think the primaries are really 'that' important - we have a separate articles for them. (Tigerghost (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

It is a bit hard to choose what is relevant or not. I see someone removed some news from the Philippines, yet similar news from other countries, (especially the US), are left in.
I agree that the primaries should be removed, otherwise we will need to have dates of every election currently ongoing everywhere else in the world. But I suspect this is not going to happen. FFMG (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and went ahead and removed the many, many presidential primaries. Except Super Tuesday. Useight (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The next Crash Bandicoot game?...[edit]

I've been reading about this lately, and as of now, I'm fairly certain that some time in October 2008, a video game called Crash: Invasion of the Bandicoot Snatchers is to be released. Somebody should put that in this article.

~ I ♥ Crash! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If it can be sourced, and is not just your opinion, it might be listed in 2008 in video gaming. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


An anon and a new editor have been adding information about the All American Football League to this article, rather than its proper location in 2008 in sports. I'm getting tired of reverting, and I'd like someone else to take over reverting until a clear consensus can be obtained. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Becoming a page for current events[edit]

I think this page is too much becoming a page for current events. There needs to be a reduction of events, or else it will get too long? Some events deserve to be on 2008 in (respective country). By the way, I think Super Bowl and Oscars should stay because although they take place in the US, it receives high international publicity than say the Grammy Awards or the NHL All Star Game.Birdienest81 (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not think Super Bowl draws that much attention from the people outside of the US, according to my personal experience (I've been in the US for 9 years, but used to live in Australia and Japan). Popularity of sports are different in each country. For example, UEFA Champions League Final draws much attention in Europe, where the term "Football" does not mean NFL or American Football, but Soccer. AFL or ARL Finals are more popular than Super Bowl in Australia. In Japan, they have live broadcast of several soccer and rugby games including college ones, while only a few American Football matches nationally televised. Even some of the people in Australia or Japan who have interests in Super Bowl, their schedule do not allow them to watch live broadcasting because it falls on Monday in their local time. --Belle Equipe (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    What about the other year articles which mentions the Super Bowl. Each year since 1967 has a Super Bowl entry? (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    Each of them should have been deleted or moved to "in Sports" or "in the United States" article of each applicable year. You can imagine what happens if all the dates and results of World Series, Stanley Cup, NBA Final, UEFA Champions League Final, UEFA Cup Final, Copa Libertadores Final, Intercontinental Cup, Six Nations Championship Final, Australian Football League Grand Final, Japan Series(each of them is "major" sporting event for respective countries or fans), are listed. --Belle Equipe (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Death of "Larry" King[edit]

I do NOT think this incident is well-known outside of US. For example, I looked up Japanese news sources, which usually make reports about school gun shootings<mainly, spray killers> occured in US, reporting it, but I could find only one article on "Gay Japan News", and NO other news source reported it. Even limited number of English-based news media has reported it. So even if it has "some notability", I do not agree with some of editors that this article should be posted on 2008, but might be posted on 2008 in the United States, if you'd like.--Belle Equipe (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are few events that had happened and probably not really notable outside of country of origin that is listed on this page. For example "January 21 - The first National Fetish Day is held in the United Kingdom, promoting the rights of the BDSM community." and "January 25 - Building for the new Liverpool Arena completed". I think the death of "Larry" King is the kind of thing that should be included. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think this is a notable event, sadly it happens all the time in schools.
Google news is has quite a few examples of it over the past few days. Should all the murders be listed? If not can you tell me why they should not be?
One of the edit comment noted that this was an event of 'international importance', I fail to see how it can be, I did not hear about it until I saw it here.
The BDSM and Liverpoool Arena events are quite different as they only happen once a year, (or only once).FFMG (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many entries[edit]

I propose that this article be further scrutinized and cleaned up. There are just too many entries and some belong in more appropriate sections. I think ones that do not make headlines from a world perspective should be relocated. For example: An entry explaining an aviation accident with no article on the accident itself should be placed on the "List of aircraft disasters" article. Birdienest81 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously there are TOO MANY ENTRIES in this articles. There should be a limit. I suggest that before adding any more events, there should be a vote. Birdienest81 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote on what? I really don't see a problem here, (or the need to shout), if you look at previous years we are roughly listing the same events.
As I said earlier, there might be some entries that need to be moved/removed but you need to start a discussion here first.
If you want to remove political events, (for example), then a consensus must be reached first before you start deleting anything. FFMG (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It does seem that 2008 has slightly more entries than previous years do, and I would be in favor of deleting some of the more trivial entries such as "January 10 -Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., known by its brand name "Panasonic", announced to change the company name to "Panasonic Corporation" from October 1.[10] ". However as WP grows this was bound to happen. More editors equals more edits and for an article like 2008 which lists current events, it is going to attract lots of edits. As long as the entry makes the mainstream news then I think it belongs here. This is an important article because it is almost an index. Readers come to this article to find the articles about the Northern Illinois University shooting and the 2008 South American diplomatic crisis for example. --Tocino 07:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there should be a vote on if the entry is deemed notable enough to stand out as a significant event of that particular. Certainly nobody cares about Panasonic. If it wants to be included in the year, their should be a page called "2008 in technology" or "2008 in business" since that is a more appropriate place for such topic.Birdienest81 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with FFMG. If you are concerned about too many entries, we would better protect this article to anonymous users first. Majority of articles recently posted or edited by anon users are nothing but JUNK (advertisements, nn birthdays, graffiti, etc.).--Belle Equipe (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support removing all unnotable events but we cannot have a moratorium while we discuss as notable events shoul;d eb included. Huckerbee giving up the Republican candidature is exactly the sort of event we don't want. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to protect the page, most junk seems to be handled rather quickly.
I think we all agree on what is notable and what is not, and we know what we should remove without too much discussion.
If there is anything we are not sure, (but still thinks it should be removed), then simply start a discussion here first.
I also agree that the US domestic elections woes are not notable. FFMG (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I would kindly request that Belle Equipe and other registered Wikipedians think carefully before adding content to this article. I am constantly seeing new entries about old entries, e.g., a Japanese whaling incident, that belong perhaps in 2008 in Japan, 2008 in Australia, in the articles for specific DATES (not the year), or even in a newspaper, because these entries sound more journalistic than encyclopedic, and because they offer little more than tangential points about entries already in this article. Moreover, the grammar in a vast portion of these entries is headache-inducing; more precisely, the fact that my grammar-fixing edits are being reverted by the original posters is headache-inducing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Whaling incidents are occured on the high seas (although Australian government claimed that those incidents are occured within their EEZ, which only 4 countries other than Australia recognizes). And at least two other countries are got involved, in addition to Australia and Japan, (Sea Shepherd is US-based, and their vessels belong to Netherlands). Most importantly, all incidents are caused by eco-terrorists recognized by IWC, an international organization. If incidents caused by terrorists in Middle East are notable enough to be listed, these incidents should be treated in the same way.--Belle Equipe (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The events are already listed, but this article isn't the place to list all the background information pertaining to them or to list everybody's reactions to them, etc. And you're making quite a leap to compare non-lethal environmental activism to deadly incidents in the Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Latte (talkcontribs) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hitting one boat hard from a side on the open water intentionally (video posted on Youtube) is "Non-lethal" huh? If you are right, almost all hit-and-run accidents are regarded as non-lethal. Or do you just ignore someone if they throw bottles with acid against you on the street? Absolutely not. Even it was non-lethal AS A RESULT, what about the Times Square incident, in which nobody was injured but listed? Is it listed because of its location, or country involved? If so, it is against NPOV, or American point of view.--Belle Equipe (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing you posted in the article made any mention of any boats being "hit," if by "hitting" you're referring to an actual collision. If that is what happened, then perhaps that is what you ought to post. If you're referring to the butyric acid attack, no one has removed that information anyway. It's still there, as is the January 15th post regarding whaling. The article was simply edited for grammar and succinctness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not mentioned but both SS and Greenpeace hit Japanese vessels. You deleted a 12 January article regarding "disruption" by Greenpeace, but it could be first lethal incident on the Southern ocean. Then you completely deleted one of 15 Jan articles regarding SS, while changing the other article to Australian POV (you deleted the sentences about EEZ dispute, then just left what Aussie government said). Then removed IWC article as well. It seems that your compilation reflects your biased POV, which is against required neutrality.--Belle Equipe (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted extraneous details, given that this is an article about 2008, not about whaling. We don't need to state everyone's point of view (which isn't feasible to do anyway) in order to establish NPOV; we just need to avoid stating selective opinions that are just as notable or non-notable as anyone else's. I left the Australian ruling because it is NOT just anyone's opinion; it is a federal court ruling. If people want to know the rest of the story, then they can check out the reference article. (Well, they can once one is added. I just noticed that that entry is uncited.) Indeed, that is basically the point of having reference articles. As for the January 12th entry, I removed it because 1) it is, presumably, yet another piece of "background" information that one can learn upon viewing reference articles for the January 15th entry; 2) because the reference link for the January 12th article was broken anyway, even though it is probably too soon for such an article to expire (i.e., it was probably entered improperly, or it was associated with your log-in to the news site); and 3) given the other whaling posts in the article, including one three days later, we get the point. Perhaps it is notable, but I'm inclined to think it's overkill (no pun intended). As it is, this article is too full and detailed, like a concentrated-and-canned version of CNN, which is not particularly encyclopedic. But if you still think that the January 12th entry is terribly important, perhaps you could seek consensus from the other Wikipedians who contribute to this article; or, if you absolutely can't resist, then at least try to cite the post with an article that we can view (and then seek consensus). Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer and the UK budget?[edit]

Do Eliot Spitzer and the UK budget need to be listed, (the 12th of March).
I don't think we should start listing every time a budget is submitted or every time a politician is caught doing something he shouldn't be doing. FFMG (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd think these sorts of domestic entries belong in the "2008 in [country]" articles, whereas the main 2008 page should be reserved for news of international concern or news that is otherwise particularly newsworthy (strong emphasis on "worthy," which IMHO eliminates the vast majority of sex-scandal nonsense). Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I have moved both to their countries. I just don't think that the Sex life of a US politician is such an important event. FFMG (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Parliamentary elections in minor nations are *far* more important than the governor of New York being forced to resign. -- (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am guessing that you are been sarcastic.
But I am curious, what makes you think that presidential elections in a country is less important a state governor resigning?
I am not from the US, so I have no idea what a state governor does, but I am guessing that he only handles domestic matters, not even domestic matters, only matters related to his state.
I am also curious as to what you consider a minor nations, (or how New York is more important than a sovereign country). FFMG (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant self-referencing elements[edit]

The calendar boxes adjacent to each month link Wikipedia featured content and not articles pertaining to those dates. This violates WP:SELF and WP:EGG. Unless the targets are changed, or omitted, these boxes should go. __meco (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Australian Open[edit]

Novak Djokovic won it on January 27, while Maria Sharapova won it on January 26. The page currently says that they both won it on January 27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzie11 (talkcontribs) 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

We shouldn't be crystal-balling that this election will produce the 44th President. If Bush died, resigned was removed from office, before the end of his term? Cheney would be the 44th President. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Using this logic we should then remove all future events from this page and all other pages within Wikipedia. I can come up with multiple scenarios that could preclude everyone of them from happening. Jons63 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed it from 44th to next, surely that'll be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it will be the "next" election, since we're not going back in time to, say, the "last" election. But since this section is for "predicted" events, it can't be "crystal-balling" unless it says anything that we can't actually predict without, well, a crystal ball (e.g., stating which candidate is going to win). Sure, something crazy could happen and make Dick Cheney president before the election happens. Or a meteor could strike the earth, or the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode and wipe us all out, and then there won't be any election at all. But do I really need a crystal ball to suggest that doomsday isn't now upon us, or that Bush will probably serve out the remaining few months of his term? I don't think so. By altering the election entry in the way that you have, you're only making it more vague and uninformative. I strongly recommend that this entry be changed back to the way it was--"44th" and all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
From 44th President to Next President. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone would like to change the entry back to what it had said before, then please go ahead and do so. I've stated my case above. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I see it has been changed already, and I also agree with your argument, (where do we draw the line about crystal-balling), but wouldn't Next be just as good as 44th. FFMG (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


I see with Arthur C. Clarke's entry, we've listed him as English (not British). It's too bad this pratice is continued on Wikipedia. Less familiar readers wouldn't think Clarke & actor Sean Connory were from the same country. English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish - can't they all be together? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you on this one. After all, people in this section aren't listed as "Texan" or "Californian" or as "South Australian" or "Queenslandian" (is that a word?). I suppose, though, that the British situation is somewhat unique, given that England, Wales, and so on are regarded as "constituent countries." Then again, England, Wales, etc. are "nations," although they're not "nation-states," whereas California, Queensland, etc. are "states," but again not "nation-states." So, in a sense, the British setup is merely the reciprocal of the American or Australian setup. So if we want to stick with nation-state labels, then "British" would be better than "English," etc. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't recall California or New South Wales being an independent sovereign nation state which entered into a political union with another former independent sovereign nation state, thereby surrendering its sovereignty in order to create a new entity with a different name and political structure, albeit retaining remnants of the former independent sovereign nation state, e.g. legal system. Or did I fall asleep during that part of world history? Rab-k (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming (Rab-k), that you prefer not to use British? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That argument seems rather redundant. The union was 300 years ago. I do assume that you are not old enough to remember the commencing of the union? Besides you may wish to view article Republic of California and Republic of Texas. They were independant...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

East Germany & West Germany were independant states (1949-90), & they merged. Howabout Yemen it's made up of two former independant states. Whatabout Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. -- GoodDay (talk)

A quote from the article Constituent country "Constituent country is a phrase used, often by official institutions, in contexts in which a country makes up a part of a larger entity or grouping" and "The word country does not necessarily connote political independence, so that it may, according to context, be used to refer either to the UK or one of its constituents" England and Scotland are still considered a country but both make up one political union. If Clarke is from England and Sean Connory is from scotland then they are both english and scottish and i think they would prefer to call themselves english and scottish first then british. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Howabout United Kingdomers? Seriously though, IMO they should both be British. But, it's apparent throughout Wikipedia, that this usage isn't being accepted. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
True but the fact that they come from different nations within the UK with a pretty much different cultures they are considerd english and scottish and not british. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It stinks though. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To insist that all English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish people be labelled as British is pushing a British nationalist POV. Polls show that most Scottish people feel Scottish before British, most Welsh feel Welsh before British, and so on. The English, Scottish, and Welsh are three different races of people. Texans and Californians are not distinct races. We still use British to describe some, when the cases are not clear cut (Someone born in Wales, but has English parents, e.g., situations like this then we can use British). It is more descriptive and user-friendly to describe someone by their nationality (English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish) than to describe them by what Union their nationality currently belongs to (the UK). --Tocino 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)