Talk:2009/Archive 1

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

Project CityCenter

I think that we should add that Project CityCenter,the most expensive privately funded construction project in U.S. History, will open November 2009 in Las Vegas —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


hi i got it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I get porn pictures coming up when I search 2009, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2010 on wikipedia. not 2007 or 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:47, January 1, 2008

Are you complaining about the lack of porn pictures for those two years? I'm not sure if this is the best place to request them. Also, please put new posts at the bottom (not the top) of the talk page, and sign and date your posts using four tildes. Chris the speller (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What in the living....

Someone seriously hit this page HARD around midnight & managed to disable the edit & history functions w/o going into the source. There were two floating PHP windows...ya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: with current knowledge, it is expected by most Americans that the Quarter (U.S. coin) will return to its pre-1999 appearance in 2009. 16:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Ron Paul will be inaugurated to the office of President at Noon Eastern Time. Assuming President Bush serves out his entire term, he will be the 44th President of the United States." There has been no president elected yet... Temporarily, I changed this statement to: "The 44th President of the United States is scheduled to be inaugurated."

President Bush completes his term

Seems liked a pointed opinion shot to suggest the President is possibly going to be impeached or something else. It's sufficient to say this date would be the end of his term.

Wrong sir, wrong. I wasn't pointing an opinion. I just think that in today's times, what with terrorism, avian flu, and hurricanes, that nothing is certain. I'm not saying I'm hoping that it happens. Not at all. I just never implied impeachment out of some lame attempt to steer public opinion.

Perhaps we should just say, like any future event, that the 44th prez is scheduled to be inaugurated on 1/20/09

Fictional events

I removed the fictional events section, which only contained a Robotech reference. This kind of information should appear on another page, (e.g. 2009 in fiction). as these year pages should be as professional as possible as they are amongst the most widely linked pages in wikipedia. Rje 01:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Take them off of 2010 too then. They probably appear on other pages too. Moncrief 03:37, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. If you were writing about 1984 in the 1970s, wouldn't Nineteen Eighty-Four have rated a mention? The film reference was a bit criptic. I assume the writer was referring to 2009 Lost Memories which has its own article. --Cavrdg 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien

I don't believe that anyone mentioned that Conan O'Brien will take over The Tonight Show from Jay Leno. It might be worth adding.--Waldo J. Cartridge 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhodri Morgan planned retirement

For a long time the "First Minister of Wales Rhodri Morgan plans retirement" has been seen on this article for 2009. This is common knowledge amongst the Welsh users of wikipedia, is there suddenly a belief that news that affects the Welsh nation is less important than other news that effect any other country? Amlder20 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is information about a leader of Wales, a nation in the U.K. like Scotland and should be recognise as so. This business of pushing Welsh information aside has become common not only on Wikipedia. This was under 'Unknown dates" and should had remained as Mr Morgan did announce that he planned a retirement nearly halfway through his third term if he gets it. "Rhodri Morgan expects to retire as First Minister of Wales. " was the sentence. Amlder20 20:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now like a dictatorship, if you don't do what your told to do your punished, I believe the removal of this information is to bully Welsh people into giving up their right to have Welsh information on a website. If this was done against an Irishmans contribution there would be riots! Amlder20 20:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this information should be mentioned on the page. It is relevant and this is the Wikipedia site for English-speaking countries... Not just the US. ---- Zestos 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


I think this page needs to be protected. There has recently been vandalism involving a person replacing the page with "Smackdown".(Myscrnnm 04:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Major Religious Event?

Just scrolling through. Why are the only events listed here "Easter" and "Chritmas"? This section is a)irrelevant (why put the same holidays on every year page if almost all of them occur annually), and b)exclusive to Christianity. Remove? (is this on every other year page too?) Arkyopterix 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking up the hoopla over the year 2012, I noticed Pagan holidays/Equinoxes & Solstices calculated out that far, but not as far as next year ?! Why is it only Christian based holidays when there are so many more religions, cultures, etc ? (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC) 2008-10-10 T00:14 Z-7

Probably no specific reason, although some of the "pagans" may believe the world will transform in 2012 to the extent that such celebrations may chnage (or change date). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Narnia Movie

Isn't The Silver Chair coming out in may of this year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedrtaylor (talkcontribs) 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is important why? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Metic Units

There was a recent story in the UK that the E.U had cancelled plans for the metrication of the UK. If this is correct please change.

I have changed this-with the appropriate citation :) Lemon martini (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day?

Is St Patrick's Day really a 'major religious event'? I don't view it as such, and I don't know anyone who does. It's just an excuse for people to get drunk. I'm part Irish (real Irish, not American-Irish) and I see it as a completely pointless day. If it really is a major religious event, then shouldn't St George's Day, St David's Day and St Andrew's Day be on there too? ---- Zestos 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


The calendar shows Burj Dubai opening in June but not to be completed until September. Can someone check on the correct dates for this please? Inearlymorning (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Major sporting events

I'd like to know why the 2009 Indanapolis 500 and 2009 Daytona 500 points were removed. First, they arguably cary more gravitas than the NBA and NHL All-Star Games (which are mentioned). Second, the article does mention the start of the Formula One season (which sets a precedent for including motor sports).Mustang6172 (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The 500s are among the major races of the racing season, not the major event. Indianapolis and Daytona 500s are not the start of the season. (And, finally, I'd like to see the Formula One season opening moved to "in racing", but the consensus has been against me.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2009 in...

I have created the article List of '2009 in' articles. Just to let everyone know, and thanks! — Orion11M87 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Inauguration of the US President

I've simplified that entry; making it similiar to the entries in 2005, 2001 etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Israeli general election

I thought consensus was that elections which do not have a world-wide effect were to be in the article from the "Elections" entry in the tab, at Electoral calendar 2009? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

True, rmv done. — Orion11M87 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Year

2009 will also be dedicated to Charles Darwin on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of publication of On the Origin of Species (see [1] and Darwin Day#Future). Unfortunately, I don't know which cover organization proposes this (although several prominent organizations support it, such as IUBS), so I'm not sure how to include this in the heading. Anyone care to help? --Yerpo (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodstock 40th anniversary

Is that a significant event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

dont get mad at me

today I made alot of changes because I added something and then fixed it and then deleted it because I realized that it should be in a different artical.And you always get mad when people make alot of changes.Whenever I add something I always have proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

removal of will be

I changed 'will be' to 'is expected to be' in the opening in this edit [2] . Seems like a logical edit to me as the edit simply implies that it is strongly expected that this year will take place (which is the case) and the other one implies it will take place beyond a shadow of a doubt on Thursday which simply is unknown. We simply do not know know what the future holds. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that the world might come to an end in the next two and a half weeks? I repeat, use common sense. (And no, it is nowhere near uncivil to refer to official policy, as you claim in your edit summary. The policy exists so that it can be referred to.) To say that next year will be 2009 is to use the word "will" in about the most obvious and uncontroversial sense imaginable. Should the future tense therefore be eliminated from the English language, on the grounds that "We simply do not know know what the future holds"? Come on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As it doesn't seem like you and I can agree on this topic, I feel a [citation needed] will need to be put beside that information that 2009 will take place beyond a shadow of a doubt. Enjoy citing the information Cheers dude (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way: If the universe is destroyed in water and fire before 2009 (here I'm making the assumption that the Gregorian calendar is dependent on the existence of the universe), at least no one will be around to complain about an inaccurate article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Only now do we know 2009 happens for a fact otherwise it is appropriate to say 'is expected to happen on such and such a date'. Happy New Year! :) Cheers_Dude (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you were (and are still) wrong, it's merely that your mistake is now irrelevant for 2009--but not for 2010, 2011, 2012, etc. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

MegaMan II

Megaman games, before X and Zero series are set in the year 200X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Apple OS

I don't think that the mention of Apple releasing Snow Leopard needs to be here. That is speculative and isn't cited. After all, Apple pushed back Leopard. Wakka092 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

What happened to '2009 in fiction'?

Something I've noticed about year articles is that, whenever a new year starts, the 'yyyy in fiction' section usually disappears. The same thing has happened with '2009 in fiction'. Is there any specific reason why that happens? I really am asking. Do works of fiction set in some future year suddenly become irrelevant as soon as that year begins in the real world? bob bobato (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it happens, but I put it back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


I agree that Superbowl is a very US-specific thing and should probably be only in 2009 in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianforever (talkcontribs) 03:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite that, it is watched by people all over the world. Furthermore, look at the UEFA (Eurocentric) that is mentioned in 2009. --WadeSimMiser (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It is irrelevant how many people watch an event (this is an online encyclopedia, not a tv guide)! This page is for internationally and historically notable events. Annual events are not notable, if all such events were included this page would become far too large. That is why there are separate pages such as 2008 in sports. The Superbowl is not even an international event and therefore belongs in 2009 in the United States (if anyone could be bothered to create that page) rather than 2009! All other annual and/or non-international sporting events should also be excluded from this page (and included in 2008 in sports and/or the relevant country page. This criteria for inclusion/exclusion of such events on year pages has already been discussed at Talk:2008 and agreed to by consensus. It has, as yet, not been applied widely to other year pages; the current year pages are difficult enough! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The Superbowl and the Academy Awards, although US-centric, have world-wide impact. I have doubts about some of the sports entries in the file, but those should probably remain.
It probably meets the proposed 3-continent rule. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"The Superbowl" only has "wordlwide impact" if you look at it from a USA perspective ie believing that people outside the USA take any notice of US sports which isn't the case. Outside the USA it has no relevance, importance or interest whatsoever. It would be like me inserting our local inter-pub game of crown green bowling. It's irrelevant to anyone outside my village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, we should remove all sports from this page unless they are truly international, off-hand, The Olympics, and the FIFA world cup are the only 2 sports I can think of that could be on the year page.
Everything else should move to their respective countries, (or 2009 in Europe) and/or to 2009 in sports FFMG (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I admit that I'm an American, although the last time I watched the Superbowl was in the last century. Still, the Superbowl, considered as a TV program, has the largest or second-largest world-wide viewing audience each year. You may also recall I've been attempting to remove Superbowl NN from the article on NN (number), for NN ranging from 20 to 50 or so.
Perhaps this question should be moved to WT:YEARS, if we're going to go back a few years to propose removing all the non-international sports events. If just for current years, this is probably the best place for discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Guideline draft

Our rules for inclusion for this page are almost impossible to know unless you already know them. For that reason, I have begun a draft for a guideline on recent year pages. Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Recent Year guidlines draft. Let's get this hammered out and posted. Wrad (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Jett Travolta

I've removed his entry from the death section. He's not notable enough, on his own. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I disgree as his death received a lot of publicity here in Italy. I think it should be listed.--jeanne (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
but he is not notable on his own to be included, he is only known coz who his dad and thats about it. Pro66 (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO, he should be listed, but if nobody else agrees, I cannot impose my POV--jeanne (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria de Jesus

Before she is deleted from the death section again please would everyone add coments on why or why not she should be in the section thanks. I believe she should be there as she was the oldest person at the time of her death making it very notable in my opinion. Hawkania (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course she should be kept. Longevity is socially and scientifically noteworthy. And, given that only one person in the world can hold this distinction at any given point in time, we don't have to worry about a disproportionatley large number of names being listed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Are all the previous oldest living persons listed in the death sections, of their respective Year articles? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm good point i'll have a look, as long as Tocino doesn't keep vandalising. Hawkania (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume ya mean the editor, not the meat product. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops lol Hawkania (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe (somewhere) an inclusion criteria was reached for these YEAR articles. It had something to do with how many articles a subject had, before it could be included. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That and we also agreed that the world's oldest persons shouldn't be listed, because a) we are trying to shorten the article, so only highly notable people are listed b) if we list world's oldest persons then we will list a new one every few months because the title changes frequently c) these people aren't notable for anything besides their death, in 20 years from now will anybody, besides their families, care? --Tocino 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes because it's an extraordinary achievment of Humanity to live for so long, and 3-5 names with a short sentence does hardly anything to lengthining (sorry for spelling) the article. Hawkania (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Tocino. With the exception of Jeanne Calment, we shouldn't be listing each of these oldest person title holders. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Besides, we'd have a bloated list, if alot of 'Oldest person' title holders pass away this year. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, we'd have to add to these articles, every tallest person, heaviest person, shortest person; etc, death. Where would we draw the line? GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the oldest people article you will see that around 40 people have held this title since 1955, so on average we will have less than one entry a year, hardly worth getting bothered about. Other record holders can be decided on the 9-article criterion. Maybe quite a few people whose deaths are listed here will be forgotten in 20 years time, but this is difficult to predict. PatGallacher (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we in agreement, to omit de Jesus from the article? GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No we're not. The criterion for inclusion in the deaths section is biographies in 9 non-English Wikipedias, which this person does fulfill. PatGallacher (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And we also agreed on the 2008 article to NOT list worlds oldest persons. I don't see why we should change now. --Tocino 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we include all the title holders when they die but for the fact that the oldest person on the planet dies it should be included as, as i'v said before, it's an amazing achievment for humanity for 1 of our kind to reach such an age, I mean the piece in the death section for Ron Asheton is far less deserving as he was merely a guitarist of which there are many world-wide while there is only 1 oldest human at a time and there aren't many that reach over 110. Hawkania (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, but you are saying we include all the title holders. When those title holders died, the were the Oldest Person in the world. What makes their achievments less significant then De Jesus'? GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is De Jesus being pushed on this article? The previous Oldest person in the world title holders, aren't being pushed on their respective YEAR articles? Why is De Jesus so special? GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to wish good health to Beatrice Farve, Kama Chinen & the others who are in-line for the Oldest Person in the World title (not to mention the current Title holder). For if they all pass away in succession of each other this year (2009), the death section will become bloated. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear lord what is your problem? It's a mere few names with who why they're there. Oh and i randomly clicked a few of the previous oldest persons checked their date of death, and would you believe it, they're listed in the death section! Hawkania (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone of them? Before & after Jeanne Calment? GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tocino. Being the oldest person isn't noteworthy enough to merit listing. Whether or not other year articles do it makes no difference. There's no reason this article should stoop to their level. Wrad (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, what if Baines dies this year & the next Title Holder & the next & the next? Potentially, we'd have Five or more Oldest Person in the world entries. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to read i said 'randomly' i didn't go through each one though of the 1's i did click they were in their year of death, death section. Though i must say are you jealous or something that you can't be included as well? Oh and if being the oldest person on the world at the death isn't 'noteworthy' then what is because as i said how is Ron Asheton deserving of a place while only being a guitarist? Hawkania (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument that X should be included because Y is is a red herring and not valid. For all I know, maybe the guitarist shouldn't be, but we're not talking about him now. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I just checked, and I really don't think the guitarist belongs either. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No we will talk about 'Y' because this is what this discussion is about, who and who isn't worthy enough to be listed in the DEath section. Hawkania (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the "jealous.." comment, at 00:01 UTC. Please elaborate or explain. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you seem to really want her off and perhaps for you to take her place, no? Hawkania (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. The reason why Ron Asheton is included is because he has 10 non-English language WP articles, one above the nine required for inclusion. He is also listed because he was not the world's oldest person. The world's oldest persons are excluded from the list regardless of the 9 non-English language criteria as editors have agreed that they just don't belong there (unless they were famous for something else besides living abnormally long). --Tocino 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC
Where was this criteria discussed and where is it posted, specifically? Wrad (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean the oldest person criteria. Wrad (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't find it on talkpages. Maybe it was agreed to on the edit summaries? I don't know, but there's more than just me who have removed worlds oldest persons before. --Tocino 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No only about 6 of us have posted with about 4 of us carrying this on if we had at least 10 users debating then maybe but at the minute no this is not an appropriate amount. Hawkania (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an impossible demand. I have rarely seen so many in one debate unless the issue was very broad. This issue is tiny. Wrad (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrad is right where is the criteria you are stating and Maria has articles in 13 languages 4! more needed and 3 more than Ron. Hawkania (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, we can't put every oldest person on this page. One of the oldest people in the world dies every year. Annual events like that just aren't notable enough to be on the main year page. It doesn't mean we think any less of her, it just means we can't afford the space. Wrad (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can't afford about 10kb of space at the most of course. Hawkania (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And if 5 or more Title Holders die this month (January 2009), do we add them too? The 10 oldest living people are all over 113 yrs old. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it's extremely unlikely that they all happen to die within a month of each other. That's of course you don't actively find them and murder them to 'save space'. Hawkania (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawkania, it's January. This page will get much larger. We are not going to make an exception just for you. Only the most notable things belong here. We are thinking of the aricle as a whole, here, not Maria. This article is not about Maria. If you want to write about her, please edit her article.Wrad (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
What's with the stalking/murder comment? And yes, medically it is possible when one is over 113 (for 10 to die in one month). GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If you're interested, see our guideline draft Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Recent Year guidlines draft Wrad (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes GoodDay it is perfectly possible but extremely unlikey. Wrad this isn't just for moi if Maria goes so should Ron and noone else should be allowed in unless they have achieved something all editors (who bother to get involved) agree on. Hawkania (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So if 10 Title Holders died within January, you fill they should all be included? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's take Ron out, then! Wrad (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's right GoodDay. Yes take Ron then you can take Maria out if you must but no one goes into the section if they are not worthy of it which editors will discuss here. Hawkania (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There it's done. Hawkania (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Wrad (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Jolly good show. PS: I've never heard of Ron what's his name, anyway. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

lol good good and soz GoodDay for some of my comments. Hawkania (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob & long live Gertrude Baines. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha Hawkania (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This 9-non-English-article thing has sure received a lot of attention for a horribly flawed argument. Wikipedia cannot be a test of its own notability; it's common knowledge that WP articles cannot cite other WP articles. Furthermore, I cannot possibly think of an easier "guideline" to abuse: Just establish a subject's notability in one language, write the article, give it to 9 yahoos to translate, and voila. Rather than pretending that there's some sort of science to this, it seems far more reasonable to me to 1) get a rough sense of the extent to which a person's life and/or death has been documented in reliable, third-party sources, and include those individuals with relatively more and better coverage. A preliminary approach to this could involve noting the number and type of references used in their WP articles. And 2) figure out some criteria that make someone obviously worthy of inclusion. Nobel/Pulitzer/Academy Award winners? Obviously. Longevity? Well, why not? It's not as though a new "oldest person" is dying every day; maybe one name will be added every year or two or three. And longevity has been culturally noteworthy ever since Biblical times, and remains so today, especially given technological and other developments in various aspects of gerontology. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, if it is something we are going to be adding every year, it ain't that special. I want to be able to say "Wow. THAT doesn't happen every year!" Wrad (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If aliens visit can we add that lol? Hawkania (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you so sure they haven't already visited, Hawkania? Perhaps we have an alien or two editing here at Wikipedia. GoodDay might even be one himself, WHO KNOWS?!!! (After all, nobody has ever seen his photo-hint hint)--jeanne (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Muhammed Abbas

Do we know, if Abbas' term has expired? Who succeeded him? GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the entry of Abbas' term having ended. He's still the President of the PA. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Important Year article policy discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#YEAR_ARTICLES_ARE_NOT_.27TRIVIA.27_ARTICLES. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine conflict

According to the wiki text, on Jan 2nd Israeli ground forces enter gaza. I couldn't verify this - no citation was given - and it wasn't announced/reported by the media. On the contrary, there are still reports about a possible future entry. Should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think any past event without a source should be removed. We kind of have to be picky about this page, and the least we can do is ask for verification. Anyone second that? Wrad (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually wonder if this even should be mentioned at all, this is not a first really. Both sides have been bombing each others for years. FFMG (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh this definitely is notable. I have never seen it on the news this much, ever. It's easily international, too. Wrad (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad, to be honest. This is easily international. Major parts of the Gaza conflict should be included in the 2009 article because it really is starting to internationally affect the world. Osama Bin Laden, the infamous leader of al Quaeda, made an audiotape solely about this conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammeredKomodo (talkcontribs) 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549

I was about to re-add US Airways Flight 1549 to the events section, when I noticed that someone else had done it. Anyway, it seems worth mentioning, for several reasons. First, it easily meets the three-continent rule. Second, the main argument against including it--"no one died"--is a poor one. Nevermind that it implies a rather morbid definition of notability (would the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict not be worth mentioning if everyone had survived?); what's chiefly wrong with this rationale is that the incident is notable precisely because no one died. Commercial airplane crashes are extremely rare. It is even rarer for a crash to occur between the first three and last eight minutes of a flight (see [3]); only 20% occur within this timeframe, as this crash did. And it's just about unheard of for a crash occuring within this timeframe to cause not only zero deaths, but only a single injury. This crash is a statistical anomaly; of course it is notable. Finally, the pilot has received recognition from the city's mayor, the state's governor, and the nation's president (although I suppose that the presidential praise might have been more eloquent had the incident happened a week or so later). So, if it's common sense that we're looking for, here you have it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Over time it may become less notable, but for now, no big deal. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Statistics can be used to 'prove' just about anything. According to the Bird strike article it is a very common occurrence [4] in the US alone. Costing no less than 600 million a year and 200 worldwide deaths since 1988, so I wasn't been morbid as you claim, (not sure why you made that assumption), in fact quite the opposite.
Bird strike are a very common occurrence and they very commonly don't cause fatalities.
Looking at Wikipedia alone, I see that Airliner bird strikes are in fact so common that someone created a category for it, (granted not quite complete, but still a good start).
The fact that the Mayor, state governor and president mentioned it is rather expected and is also not very notable, (maybe if they had said the opposite).
So at best the article should go to [2009 in the United Sates]. FFMG (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What's interesting isn't that the birds struck the plane, but that the plane struck the water--and that everyone on board survived. Or, to put it differently, what's interesting is that, against the odds, there was a lethal problem six minutes into the flight, and against even greater odds, one person simultaneously saved the lives of 150 people from that problem. And of course statistics can be abused, but it doesn't require any mathematical trickery to point out that what happened yesterday was remarkable, or to get it international coverage. While it certainly deserves a spot in 2009 in the United States, it has an understandable international appeal apart from its sheer remarkableness: It could happen anywhere. There is nothing particularly "American" about the coexistence, and potential confluence, of airplanes, birds, and water. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I understand the reasoning that this incident is more interesting because there were no casualties the criteria for inclusion on Year pages is historical and international notability not it's interest of newsworthiness factor. This is not the first time a plane has survived a bird-strike without casualties. It is unlikely to be the last. That this occured at such a low altitude is more significant but if scales of significance were a criteria there would be even more arguments about what level would justify inclusion. This particular incident has received massive media coverage because it was so close to the extensive news resources of the United States. Less notable events in the past have received more news coverage while far less notable events have received just as much if not more. News coverage is not a reliable basis for notability. As mentioned above, how notable will this incident be considered in a year's time? I suspect much less than some consider it to be at present. (I won't remove it again, there are far more trivial entries here that should go first...) Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This has received massive coverage internationally, of which there can be no doubt, as the slightest search through multiple foreign-language editions of Google News would show. It was front-page news world-wide, including the UK, Turkey, Germany, Austria, India, Brazil, Hong Kong, Australia, and yes, New Zealand. These are all, I stress, front pages featuring the story, which took very little effort to turn up.
That this is notable is without doubt, and employing a reverse crystal-ball argument doesn't negate that. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, Some of the links you gave are broken[5] or are of the wrong[6], (current), front page. How do you get the front page of a specific date? FFMG (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe they change the examples every day and only archive those for historic occasions (I actually found this page a few years while looking up coverage for an event). If necessary, I could send you a few of them that i downloaded at the time. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No, no, I was just curious how that particular site worked. It is quite interesting, but it would be even better to be able to have a persistent/permanent link to the front page(s) in question. FFMG (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What's with the HUGH 2009

Why do we have a huge 2009, at the top of the article? GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why it is there, I think it is a bit too big. FFMG (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't be here. Wrad (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday

I know this has already been removed twice; but since it's back for the moment...

How can Lincoln's 200th birthday not be notable worldwide, when there is a Global Conference on Abraham Lincoln, July 3-5, that is notable?

Ken g6 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability world-wide does not automatically mean an event should be included. Wrad (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not even sure that this particular event is notable outside the US. FFMG (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hm, no reference (even in its own article), and it doesn't seem particularly notable worldwide. I think you're right. I've put it in 2009 in politics, and I'll remove them both from this page. — Ken g6 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Inspite of the fact that this may be considered as block evasion, I must make the point that I do not agree with sub-sectioning every month on every year article just for the sake of doing so. Specially, the events section does not require sub-sectioning it into January. I feel that a more reasonable division for this page atleast for the predicted and scheduled events would be quarterly. -- (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're currently a blocked editor, then yes this is block evasion. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't the point. Do you agree that month sub-sectioning doesn't always make sense? --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If there is ever a month in which nothing notable happens then it can be deleted. Even given that there are future months with entries which do not belong on this page the chances are that eventually something appropriate will be included. Common sense suggests that removing the month sections now only to have to put them back in later is rather pointless! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is dynamic.. there is no need for preparing for future content. It can be adjusted as and when new information comes. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Nor is there any need to make changes that break standard linkages or which deviate from standard organisational schemes for the benefit of...well, of what, I'm not so sure. Why the edit-warring over this? What about this has prompted you to finally break radio-silence over this issue? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly who defines this standard? Wikipedia is not about standards, it is about freedom. It's a wiki. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I request that I be allowed to remove the excess sub-sectioning and make it more reasonable. I am not being allowed to make this edit on the pretext of consensus. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Request denied. You still haven't explained your obsession with this one issue, for one thing. And consensus is not a 'pretext', it's a standard operating procedure. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
How can I verify this consensus? Where can I see the evidence for this? --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I have not yet received any answer on this. No need to respond? Perhaps User:CalendarWatcher should be blocked for not responding to my question and reverting my edits everytime rather than me? Why has he taken ownership of all year pages? Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As no one else agrees with you, it looks like consensus to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the strangest definition of consensus. You are denying my viewpoint completely because I didn't get some friends to come and make comments? I can do that, you know. Define consensus for me, this is not convincing at all. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
As strange as you might find it, that's the way Consensus works, (you can look up the definition itself on the article). No one mentioned friends or otherwise, a group of people came to an agreement, that agreement seems obvious to me. FFMG (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Where can I see the "process" involved at arriving at this consensus? Where is the discussion? --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to bring along all your friends waiting in the wings, perhaps you can start a new discussion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you admit that there has been no discussion and you simply claim consensus? Perhaps you should be banned for this. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the adjective 'new', as used above. Why I should be banned for this I fail to understand. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful not to feed the trolls here. FFMG (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Spaceflight entries

There are an awful lot of these on this page. Surely most, if not all, are insufficiently notable for this article. There is after all a separate page for such events. Does anyone feel their retention here is justified? DerbyCountyinNZ 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno — it is the International Year of Astronomy. Seriously, I don't know if that should matter or not. — Ken g6 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't even think that should be on here. Wrad (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is consensus to the contrary within 2 week I'll go ahead and remove them all. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I think that there should be as much information as possible. User:AliDincgor —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
Do not remove them, there should be as many as possible, for spaceflight and the exploration of space is extremely important. There are far more events listed on this page that deserve to be there less so than the space related events, so if you are looking to free up space (pun not intended), take your pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The Ares I-X test flight is the first test of a new manned launch vehicle since STS-1 (first Space Shuttle flight) in 1981. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As for mission entries, it seems to be Wikipedia consensus to include them in year articles. Every year article from 1957 to 2008 (bar 1987, when there were no human spaceflights; info about Space Station Freedom is included instead) lists the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Skylab/Soyuz/Salyut/Shuttle/SpaceShipOne flights as well as notable unmanned spaceflight events (e.g. Voyager, Viking, Mars Exploration Rovers, MESSENGER, etc.). Considering that orbital and interplanetary spaceflights are relatively rare and highly publicized events, I think they should be included. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not looked through years before 2007 for spaceflight entries but I suspect that rather than concensus there has been no application of the guidelines to those pages (the same goes for many other topics with Year in category pages). Unless a flight is an absolute first (not just the first in 10/20 years) then it needs to be exceptional to be included in this article. The official opening of the International Space Station would probably count as exceptional but the flights to it would not be. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I would consider Ares I-X a first - it is the first test flight of the Constellation program, which will likely dominate NASA for the next few decades. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2009 in spaceflight (and the other [Year] in spaceflight) articles are much more extensive and include sub-orbital spaceflights, and detailed mission and orbital parameters; I don't think we should remove spaceflight entries from articles simply because they are described in greater detail in separate articles. There are [Year] in film and [Year] in politics articles, but we still include major films and political events in year articles. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 11:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


When I first saw it here, I didn't expect that the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich would be notable enough. I put it in the US page, and went to Google News to check the 3 continent rule before removing it. But I did find 3 articles from different continents to reference, so I referenced them and left the entry. After it was first deleted, I went back, and found at least five more international news articles:

That was 12 hours ago; now there are even more stories, but you get the point. The argument could be made that when BBC News and Al Jazeera both pick up a story, it's world news.

Also, the last time a governor of a state was impeached and convicted was 1998. I checked that article, and the entry is there, the first entry in April.

Seems notable enough to me. — Ken g6 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I've just asked Belle Equipe about the criteria for inclusion as she sees them, I'll wait til I get a response. IMO local importance combined with worldwide interest (as with Blagojevich) would justify inclusion, and looking at other year articles such as 2008, this seems to be a good rule of thumb. Hadrian89 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think common sense must prevail here, what happens to the Governor of a US state is not 'international' news.
As a non US citizen I have no idea what a Governor does, just like I am sure you have no idea what a Prefect does in my country, (or a Premier in the country I am currently working in).
So a governor loosing his job, for whatever reason, is not really internationally notable and has zero international impact, (does it even have an impact outside the state in question?). FFMG (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Unlike senators and representatives, governors don't even convene at the national level. The relevance of this event is pretty much limited to the state of Illinois, and this appears to be a fine example of a little ball of American media trivially bouncing all around the globe. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this, but note the facts:
  1. The last time a US governor was impeached was over 20 years ago.
  2. What he is accused of doing (selling a Senate seat) would qualify as internationally notable if it had happened.
  3. It does have international coverage (meets 3-continent rule).
Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is another example of mistaking news for notability. This is not the first time a governor has been impeached, it is not even the first time a US governor has been impeached. The international impact of the impeachment of a US governor is practically non-existent. It has received widespread international news coverage because news coverage does not rely on any degree of notability to make something newsworthy (if it did waterskiing chipmonks would be notable). If this entry is allowed it sets a precedent for similar events in other countries to also be included even if they receive virtually no news coverage. In my view the "3-continent" rule should not be used to verify or justify notability, failure to meet it should be used to exclude entries for lack of notability. Of course there are exceptions to every rule and rules can be changed and common sense and concensus should be applied on a case by case basis. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:Recent years makes it clear that the three-continent rule is a minimum requirement, not a reason for automatic addition. That said, the impeachment is less notable than the accusation of selling a Senate seat. Congress is an internationally relevant body, since it is the body which approves of international treaties. We need an event more concretely connected to the Senate seat scandal. Blago's impeachment is just a preliminary sideshow to what may come if he really is guilty. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Having re-read Wikipedia:Recent years, I retract my claim that it merits inclusion. I would like to point out though that I never suggested international interest was the only criterion, I did cite local importance (in this case the fact that Blagojevich is the head of government for 13m people) - so waterskiing chipmunks would never have got the thumbs-up from me! Hadrian89 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, by how would corruption in the US Senate/Congress be an international event?
Every country has a Congress/Senate/Parliament/etc that makes laws, are you suggesting that we include all their internal politics? FFMG (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think (in some contrast to my earlier sentiments) that what might be notable here is that he was accused of selling the President-elect's former position. Obama is a figure of worldwide significance, and it's peculiar that someone could have been so cavalier about the penultimate step (i.e., the Senate seat) in his journey to the top. Nonetheless, this may be at least a borderline case of Blagojevich inheriting notability from Obama, and that's not an astounding reason for inclusion. Also, the notion of corrupt politicians is hardly anything new. I suppose I've become rather neutral on including this. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If he is convicted in his criminal trial, we ought to seriously consider including it. I can't justify including the impeachment, as he was already impeached by the Illinois House of Representatives, and we haven't included that. It has been covered widely internationally. Let's not forget that the charges brought by Patrick Fitzgerald are federal charges, so Blago may very well wind up in Terre Haute. It's also worth noting that this case has been deeply covered by the media across the United States, especially considering this was, as has been pointed out, a charge of attempting to sell the president's Senate seat. Emphasis on president. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I do however think it is notable enough to be included in 2009 in politics. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2000s decade

The first millenium, century and decade AD started with the year 1. The last year of the first millenium was 1000, the last year of the second millenium was 2000. Therefore a decade SHOULD be considered to be 1991-2000, 2001-2010, 2011-2020 etc. While a decade could be any 10 years and 2009 is the last of the 10 years that start with 200 including the sentence "It is ( considered) the last year of the 2000s decade." is sufficiently disputable as to be of no real value in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I take the reverse approach, no one (other than the editor above) refers to 2001–2010 as a named decade; while 1990–1999 is the 1990s (or '90s), and 2000–2009 is the current decade, whatever its name might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
To me, it makes perfect sense to say that 1991-2000 was the last decade of the 21st century and 2nd millennium, but absolutely no sense to say that 2000 (cardinal number) was part of the 90's (cardinal numbers). 21st and 2nd are ordinal numbers, and do not have to be equivalent to cardinal numbers such as years; i.e., "the first" (ordinal) need not be "one" (cardinal). But cardinal numbers need to correspond with other cardinal numbers. Saying that 2000 was part of the 90's makes a little sense as saying that 100 = 90. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, years are probably in a more meaningful sense nominal numbers than cardinal numbers. (If I say, "I went to the beach in 2007," I'm using "2007" to direct you to the point in recent history when I went to the beach, not to inform you that 2007 years had passed since the beginning of AD/CE.) Still, we need to keep our names straight; we don't want to call an apple an orange or, by analogy, to call "two thousand" one of the "nineties." Then again, some names refer to fuzzy sets: Most people wouldn't complain if I referred to "1-899-555-555" as a "1-800 number" (both are toll-free in the U.S.), and, more to the point, many people imply a good chunk of the 1970s when they refer to "the 60's" as an era. But I know of no conventional sense (and not even an unconventional sense, apart from the one being suggested above) in which "the nineties" includes 2000 or excludes 1990, or in which "the [erm, whatever the current decade is called]" includes 2010 or excludes 2000. Common sense (and, as you will see momentarily, article titles) dictates that 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 are nominal decades; so, unless a considerable amount of reliable sources contradict common sense, it might be best to defer to common sense. (I apologize if I offend anyone by invoking my pet policy, WP:UCS. Oddly, I have received flak for doing so before.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of people no doubt consider eg 1990s to be a "decade" as they do 1900-1999 a century. But the 1900s is not the same as the 20th century. Strictly speaking the first number of a yearly sequence is the year eg 1001 and the last is not 1009, 1099 or 1999 but 1010, 1100 and 2000. Of course this doesn't make sense when referring to the 1990s as a decade as unlike century and millennia there is normally no numbering for the decade. The key wording in the relevant sentence is "the 2000s decade". I doubt if anyone would refer, at least in speech, to 2000-2009 as the "2000s decade"! It's either the 2000s (as 1990s, 1980s etc) or the (rather cumbersome in this case) noughties (as nineties, eighties etc). We've already had at least one editor take serious issue with the accuracy of the sentence. Surely it would just be easier to remove it? I think most users could work out for themselves that 2009 is the last year that starts with 200! DerbyCountyinNZ 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a decade is any set of ten years. The years from 1957-1966 are a decade. The 90s are a decade because they are a set of ten. Wrad (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the sentence should be removed, though. Wrad (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I realised after logging off last night ("I must not edit wiki after a long stressful day at work") that the reason the sentence is worded that way is to differentiate the 2000s "decade" from the 2000s millenium (and/or possibly century). I still think that avoiding one "problem" has created another! DerbyCountyinNZ 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At this risk of dragging this out more than it deserves, and with the possibility we are going round in circles...I will try and summarise the relevant problems. Forgive me if I use "decade", "century" and "millenia" for a 10/100/1000 year span and decade, century, and millenia for chronological years AD, this is for consistency.

  1. Millennia.
    1. The first millenium AD is years 1-1000
    2. The second millenium AD is 1001-2000
    3. The third millenium AD is 2001-3000. While 2000-2999 is a "millenium" it is not the 3rd millenium AD.
  2. Centuries.
    1. 1800-1899 is the "1800s" or the "eighteen hundreds" but not the "nineteenth century" which is 1801-1900.
    2. 1900-1999 is the "1900s" or the "nineteen hundreds" but not the "twentieth century" which is 1901-2000.
    3. 2000-2099 is the "2000s ("century")" or the ?"twenty hundreds". I can't think of a more appropriate term equivalent to the "eighteen hundreds" or "nineteen hundreds". It is in any case not the same as the "twenty-first century" which is 2001-2100.
  3. Decades.
    1. 1990-1999 is the "1990s" or the "nineteen nineties" or just "The nineties".
    2. 1960-1969 is the "1960s" or the "nineteen sixties", "the swinging sixties" or just "The sixties".
    3. 1920-1929 is the "1920s" or the "nineteen twenties", "the roaring twenties" or just "The twenties".
    4. 1910-1919 is the "1910s" but the "nineteen tens/teens" is rather clumsy and "the tens/teens" makes virtually no sense at all!
    5. 1900-1909 is the "1900s ("decade")" but not the "nineteen hundreds" (which is the "century"), and probably not the "nineteen ohs/oughts/noughts" which is especially clumsy, and certainly not the "ohs/oughts/noughts/noughties" which, if anything, would be the current "decade". It is also NOT the first decade of the nineteenth century which is 1901-1910. If the millenium and century start with 1901 how can the decade start with 1900?
    6. 2000-2009 is the "2000s ("decade")" as distinguished from the "2000s ("century")" and "2000s ("millenium")". It might be referred to as the "twenty ohs/oughts/noughts" or the "ohs/oughts/noughts/noughties" all of which are pretty unsatisfactory. In any case it is not the same as the first decade of the twenty-first century or the third millenium which is actually 2001-2010.

So while 2009 is indeed the last year of the 2000s ("decade"), (and anyone with a basic grasp of the arabic numbering system should be able to work this out!) it is not the last year of the first decade of the twenty-first century/third millenium which is actually 2010. So we could mention that second fact as such at the top of 2010, thus having two consecutive "last years of...decade...". Surely confusing to the lay wiki reader and somewhat disconcerting to the more pedantic chronologists!? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 09:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (I really must get back to some proper wiki editing!)

Images - January deaths

Of all the people whose deaths are listed for January, why in the world is a boxer's image the one shown? dougweller (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Who would you rather have rather than him? FFMG (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a few reasons. First of all that is the best image, visually speaking, out of all the people we have listed. Secondly, January 2009 was kind of odd... there wasn't a single person who died last month that was extremely notable. For example in January 2008, Edmund Hillary, Heath Ledger, and Suharto all died in the same month. Unforunately we didn't have room to put Suharto's image on the 2008 article. But January 2009 is the exact opposite. There wasn't a person who died who was the obvious choice. Finally, we have to spread out the nationalities and professions. We can't put an image of an American or a politician for every month. We need to spread it around. A Swedish boxer, who was named Sportsman of the Year for 1959, is unique and notable enough to warrant a picture on the 2009 article IMO. --Tocino 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

World Games

It is a non-annual, multi-sport, international event, but is it really notable enough for this page? I keep a pretty close eye on sports but this one has never left a lasting impression on me! DerbyCountyinNZ 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many events

It looks like we are not following the path set by the 2008 article. There are 23 events for January (it seems most of them are at the end of the month) and already 5 events for the first 3 days of February. --Tocino 22:31, 05 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of us have tried!! DerbyCountyinNZ 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed quite a few of them. But I wish people would slow down with the editing. --Tocino 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Despite the fact that there are established guidleines (I don't know what thew point of having this at the top of the Events section is if it is hidden, most users will never see it there!) some editors persistently ignore them, assuming they can understand them in the first place. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
And you can't click through to it in any case. I agree, we are not giving users the guidance that they need so it is not surprising that the page gets to be a mess. I have started a discussion here: [7]. I think this needs to be on the main page. And thinking about it, I may just put it there boldly until something else is decided. dougweller (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now they are reverting my reverts! Great, look like this article is already going to the dogs. Seriously, nobody from 20 years from now is going to care about revaluation of Zimbabwean dollar or Angela Merkel telling Bishop Richard Williamson to apologize. --Tocino 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But the Zimbabwean revaluation does meet the 3 continents rule, so I don't see how we can take it out and ask people to follow guidelines. dougweller (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
But merely meeting the 3-continent rule is not sufficient. If it was even more trivia might be included. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, the month is only a week old. If, come March, the February section is bloated, then the less notable entries can be winnowed out. As of yet, it doesn't appear that anything major is being drowned out by trivia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about what Angela Merkel said, (I think we should have the fact that they were integrated in the first place rather than the reaction to them been re-integrated).
But the Zim dollar is quite an event, it is not just about dropping 12 0's off their denomination it is about the imper-inflation as well and how the region is affected. This is why we all know what happened to Germany in the 20's, (and some even argue what happened afterward because of it).
If we going to accept trivia such as one president taking oath, (an how one fascinating record for that country was apparently broken for the first time since 1956), then we must accept event that only happen every 90 years or so. FFMG (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Accepting a country's presidential inauguration depends on whether we are going to treat all countries the same or some as more notable than others. I favour the former view but consensus appears to favour the latter. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody uses the Zimbabwean dollar. The country is a backwater basket case. The only reason why it makes the news in English speaking media is because the British feel partially responsible for its current sorry state of affairs. --Tocino 06:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this is almost exactly what everybody said about the German Deutsche Mark in 1923. Funny how history works sometimes.
As an aside, there are a few countries around Zim that are affected by its behaviour/collapse, I agree that they are quite far from the US and as such they are probably non existent, but they are affected nonetheless. FFMG (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The difference here is that Zimbabwe is incapable of starting World War III. --Tocino 18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What has war got to do with all this?
Do you look up to German military might and what they did as more worthy to inclusion?
Is military your standard for inclusion? FFMG (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What I am saying is that the revaluation of Zimbabwean currency is trivial and doesn't belong on the article. Zimbabwe has no power or influence and its currency isn't widely used. --Tocino 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The revaluation is merely a symptom of on-going political/financial difficulties, as was the revaluing of the Deutschmark in 1923. If this entry were allowed then it could be used as an argument that many other similarly trivial entries also be allowed. Such entries belong in Year in Country articles not Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rome has given the Dalai Lama honorary citizenship... this is a major event according to someone. --Tocino 03:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really that notable, but then again it is no less notable than several other entries which have been allowed to stand! DerbyCountyinNZ 22:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Monthly picture candidates

February: The first openly homosexual head of government or the deadliest bushfires in Australian history could be a reasonable pick. I realize the month is still young, but figured I'd create a general area for the discussion of this recurring topic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would favour something about the fires, but I don't think a small picture would work well enough to represent the subject. So Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is probably a better choice. FFMG (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The fires are definitely a bigger story considering they have killed about 200 people, by far the largest in Australia's history. Sigurðardóttir is only an interim PM and her party isn't favored to win in the elections which will be held in April, plus I think her picture is too big and it takes up an inordinate amount of space. --Tocino 03:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree that something about the fires would be better. I am just not sure that we have any good enough images to make the point. FFMG (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Air crash in year pages.

I removed the entry about the Flight 3407 crash, but as Bongwarrior rightly pointed out, there are quite a few crash listed in the 2008 article and probably in other years as well. Looking at last year for example:

  • January 12 - A Macedonian Army Mil Mi-17 helicopter crashes in thick fog southeast of Skopje, killing all 11 military personnel on board.
  • January 23 - Polish Air Force EADS CASA C-295 crashes on approach to the 12th Air Base near Mirosławiec. All 20 personnel on board die
  • April 15 - A Hewa Bora Airways DC-9 crashes into a residential area of Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • April 28 - 71 die in a train crash in Shandong, China.
  • August 20 - Spanair Flight 5022, from Madrid to Gran Canaria, skids off the runway and crashes at Barajas Airport with 172 on board. 154 of them are killed and only 18 survive
  • August 24 - An aircraft crashes in Guatemala, killing 10, including 4 Americans on a humanitarian mission
  • August 24 - Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 6895 crashes upon takeoff near Manas International Airport in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, killing 68
  • September 14 - Aeroflot Flight 821 crashes near the city of Perm, Russia, killing all 88 on board

If we are going to add them, then we might as well direct the user to the Aviation accidents page.

I don't think we should have any of those crashes in the first place, (let alone the bird strike). So what is the consensus regarding crashes, (aircraft, train and so on)? Do we add them all, some of them or none of them? FFMG (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion: This sort of thing is "guidelined" and discussed somewhat at WP:DOY and WP:YRS (see also the respective talk pages). Consensus seems to be that if a natural or other disaster like an aircract crash merits an article itself, and does not fail WP:N, then it can be included in the year listings. Of course we should not go crazy with this - if some kid creates an article about his birthday party (and nobody dies), then that article will not likely survive wp:AFD or wp:speedy, so we need not include that in the year article. So, granted, not all airplane crashes are necessarily notable; it seems to depend on press coverage, with an eye towards longevity (notability is not temporary). Commercial airline crashes, especially with passengers involved, are probably almost always to be considered notable, and more especially with additional consideration for notable or "interesting" causes (icing, birds, terrorism, pilot error, mechanical / electrical / hydraulic equipment failure, structural failure, etc.), or perhaps if anyone notable was on board. That said, if some random non-notable guy ditches his Cessna in a corn field in Nebraska and kills a cow because he ran out of fuel or forgot to set flaps or something, that probably will probably fail notability (at least eventually) and can be ignored. Now if the pilot was a certain former President, then it might be notable enough to include. Just an opinion... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that certainly most air accidents do not belong in year pages, there are simply too many. 9/11 and Lockerbie were not accidents and should be included. If there were to be a criteria of a minimum number of fatalities that should be quite high, at least 50, preferably 100. Perhaps there also should be a consideration as to whether the flight was international and/or involved passengers of multiple nationalities. I have argued previously that a plane crash involving no fatalities does not belong on a year page, no matter how much news coverage it receives. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 18:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
When one plane crash kills 50 (or 115) people, folks pay attention. When 50 car crashes kill 50 people, or when 115 car crashes kill 115 people (that's how many die per day in U.S. car accidents), no one even blinks. Now, let's say a severe storm causes the conditions that lead to 50 car accident deaths. Then people listen. Interesting, isn't it? A million people could be suffering for a million apparent reasons, but it's not until someone with a fairly prominent arm opens up a thematic umbrella--war, weather, terrorism, famine, recession, oppression--that people perk up and pay attention. Sometimes these umbrellas pop open rather automatically, such as when a tsunami strikes or an airplane crashes. Disasters aren't notable because people live or die--everyone is doing one of those things all the time--but because they have thematic social consequences. Many evoke international sympathy or outrage, or raise concerns about globally relevant issues, such as climate change or violence. Some have serious national consequences, such as heightened hope, fear, or solidarity, that are noted internationally. The Hudson River ditching evoked the "hero" archetype and prompted talk about a "miracle." The problem with including most plane crashes isn't that they're too common--commercial plane crashes are a transportational rarity, and yesterday's appears to be the first in the U.S. in a few years--but that they don't commonly have a discernable social character. This crash might have one, because it's the first here in so long, but it's not clear yet what that character might be, or whether other countries will take note of it. If it becomes clear and well-documented, then by all means include it; if not, then maybe it is better reserved for 2009 in the United States. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, I think it comes down to the notability of the event itself - and if the referenced article on the disaster does not fail notability, then it is a very very good candidate for inclusion here in my opinion. The last fatal commercial aircraft crash in the US was 2.5 years ago, so they do not happen "all the time". There were (evidently) 8 "notable" crashes in 2008 worldwide - during 4 of the 12 months. It is not like we would be clogging every month with daily crash counts or something. That said, if any of the mentioned 2008 crashes do not have accompanying articles (at the very least for verifiability or cross-referencing purposes), then I would not have a problem with deleting them from the list at 2008. Obviously the NTSB does not investigate every car crash, regardless of the body count, but the FAA certainly does thoroughly investigate aircraft crashes, and formal reports are produced and made available through FOIA, so again, it is probably a notable event. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
As this page is not 2009 in the United States I fail to see the relevance of it being 2.5 years since the "last fatal commercial aircraft crash in the US". DerbyCountyinNZ 22:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how all those events can make it to the 2009 article, the Bird strikes for example, is very common, (just the other day, another 'hero' saved all on board [8], but admittedly he made it back to the runway), maybe we should add that one as well.
Apart from all the bird strikes, we will also need to add some/all the events in this category, a bit much I think but if we don't do it then I really cannot see any consistency, we might as well redirect 2009 in the United States here rather than going around in circles all the time. FFMG (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There are or were multiple arguments going on here. One said it is not notable because airline crashes happen "all the time", and therefore commonality is equivalent to non-notability. But they don't happen "all the time" - at least in the US. Another seems to be something to do with bird strikes - I thought the crash in question was the ice- (and possibly pilot-) induced Continental crash, where all aboard perished, not the flock of geese collision and Hudson River landing, where all aboard survived (except for several geese). Anyway the current discussion (from overseas?) seems to be leaning towards "well this crash was in the US, and it is not really notable to the world". I assume this means it was not covered as a notable event outside of the US and perhaps Canada (since it was a Canadian-built plane), not that there is some sort of odd nationalism going on. Neutrally speaking, if the crash was indeed not notably covered in the press in other English Speaking nations worldwide (which could be a little shocking to US users), then perhaps it does make sense to delete it here. But once again (again), we should be discussing the NOTABILITY of the event itself as the criteria for inclusion, not the frequency of similar crashes, or the location, or possible causes, or any other distracting issues that should have nothing to do with the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion. The existence of an article in the English Wikipedia seems to suggest sufficiently high notability. Hypothetically, if that article is later deleted, then the entry certainly cannot be further supported here, and it should go away. Just my third-party view. Now if I am the only one that sees this, and reasoned consensus is against that view, the by all means, go with consensus and let the real debate (if anyone protests) transfer to WP:RfC, perhaps at an appropriate project page. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Being notable enough to deserve its own wiki article does not mean an article is automatically notable enough for a Year page. If it were these pages would get unfeasibly large in no time at all. In fact this happened with 2008 before a concerted effort was made to intorduce stricter criteria. When similar issues occurred on this page earlier in the year the Wikipedia:Recent years guidelines were established. At present the guideline for disasters is "Disasters of a global or near-global significance may be added". Given that "High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article" we are left with the issue of whether Flight 3407 is of at least near-global significance. I believe it is not and this would go for any similar-sized accident in similar circumstances in any country. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. This all probably should have been stated properly in this context at the beginning of the discussion, as consensus had already been well established. Sorry to have even gotten involved. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deaths notability

I notice that three deaths have been deleted recently from February. Two of those three met the lone WP:Recent years guideline for notability that I can see: articles in at least 10 languages. Is there another metric I'm missing? Does news of their deaths have to meet the 3CR or something? — Ken g6 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles in 10 languages is the minimum requirement, individuals must also be historically and internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama inauguration

Do we need to have that event listed? Is it really such an internationally notable event?
As it is we don't include elections in most, (all?), countries, let alone their inaugurations, so to include his inauguration seems bit much. FFMG (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to wait and see what the international response is before making a call. Wrad (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UK User here - would vote yes as it will likely get world wide news coverage Fiddley (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fiddley. Lots of countries and elections exist, but very few of them receive significant international coverage. This would happen to be one that does. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
All previous US Presidential inaugurals are mentioned in the YEAR articles. Why exclude Obama's? GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be an automatic thing, but Obama is the first black leader of a G8 nation, so he should make the cut. Wrad (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with his skin color or heritage. As a non American I always fell to see the obsession with that point, is that the only reason he was elected?
The point is about consistency, we don't mention the elections of just about any country in around the world apart from a chosen few. And we certainly don't mention the inauguration of any other leaders.
His election was mentioned in 2008, but why also mention his inauguration?
Otherwise it would seem only consistent to mention the inauguration of John Atta Mills as newly elected president of Ghana on the 7th, (see the Ghanaian presidential election, 2008 FFMG (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The inauguration of an American president is always newsworthy, therefore Obama's should be included. It will likely be the most televised inauguration in recent history.--jeanne (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is not about news. It is for internationally and historically notable events. Obama is not the first leader of a country to have his/her inauguration broadcast, he is not even the first U.S. President. Therefore on what basis is this internationally notable? DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think television was around at the time of George Washington's inauguraton (correct me if I am wrong). I believe that the inauguration of the first African-American president of the United States is a notable and historic event worthy of inclusion. Perhaps we should solicit comments from others editors.--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, his skin color has nothing to do with it and, once again, I really hope that this is not the only reason he was elected.
In any case, the fact that he is the first Black US president might be notable in the US, but he is certainly not the first black president, (correct me if I am wrong but that's the other 99% of the world population).
But, as the US is one of the super-powers his election was mentioned in the 2008 article, but his inauguration is nothing more than news/trivia.
It is a bit double standard to the extreme that the election and inauguration of one president is mentioned when the election of most other presidents is not even mentioned in the first place. FFMG (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
First black president in a G8 nation does it for me. I think most people would agree that matters. Wrad (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously his race matters more in the US that I thought. I cannot wait for the first Gay, Black, Jewish woman to be elected, she will not need any policies to be elected, she could campaign on those facts alone.
In any case, I don't think we should generalize as to what 'most people' would agree. So far it looks like 'most people' don't care.
Also when you say 'does it for me', what do you mean? Mention his election? Mention his election and inauguration? Mention his election, inauguration, first 100 days in office? Where does it stop?
Am I to assume that we will mention the upcoming election of the South African president and his inauguration as well? Maybe we should also mention inauguration of the president if Ghana.
In fact I am pretty sure I will be able to find 3 headlines articles about them, what do you think? FFMG (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It isn't just the US that cares about this, FFMG. As for Ghana and South Africa elections this last year, what makes them notable? Do you honestly think they are at the same level in the news as Zimbabwe and the USA? I haven't seen a blip in the news about either Ghana or South Africa. The only elections I've seen regularly on the news recently were the US and Zimbabwe (and I watch both American and Arabic news.) Wrad (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, you missed my points about the difference between inaugurations and elections and the blatant double standards been applied here. Anyway, I can see that some are getting heated about such a minor point and are not even prepared to enter any kind of discussion on the mater.
It is just sad to see that most 'regular' editors are in fact just as bad as the others and have no real interest in improving the article. FFMG (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That's quite a pessimistic view! I'd say it boils down to the fact that we just don't see this the same way. You're right, it does have to stop somewhere, though. We can't have events for Obama leading the G8 summit, Obama signing his first bill, and Obama vetoing his first bill. Wrad (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Not pessimistic, just realistic. In years to come, people will be interested to know that he was elected in 2008, but will they really be interested to know when he actually walked down the street and swore on a bible in 2009? Is it not more than trivia?
Will future readers not wonder why this particular presidential inauguration was mentioned, did anything special happen then?
More importantly, I am just a bit saddened that the obvious points I was trying to make were missed. FFMG (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Obama Inauguration stays. All the other Year articles, mention US Presidential Inaugurations. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's it then, what can I say to that, if you decided that it stays then that must be a rule or something. Thanks for your input. FFMG (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Elections in many countries are noted, despite what has been said above. See, e.g., 1979#May (Margaret Thatcher), 1997#May (Tony Blair—noting both the election and assumption of power), 1999#November (Helen Clark), 2006#January (Stephen Harper), 2007#May (Nicolas Sarkozy). The central premise behind not including the inauguration is flawed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrius (talkcontribs) 07:04, 13 January 2009
And this is why I said at the very beginning, "As it is we don't include elections in most, (all?), countries...", then I even added "...we don't mention the elections of just about any country in around the world apart from a chosen few.", so yes, some rare elections are noted in some years, in some cases, but those are more the exception than the norm, and inaugurations are certainly not included as in most cases it is nothing more than trivia, of course an elected president will have an inauguration.
In almost all cases, (in the 2008 articles), the only way an election could be added is if it was somehow exceptional.
So the central premise is not flawed, your are simply, (badly), misquoting me. FFMG (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think from now on we will have to choose one or the other unless (the election date or the inauguration date) unless the one is notable for a reason largely unrelated to the other. Wrad (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is like everything on the year articles really. Why should this be any different?
The election of a president of a super power might be notable, but something very special would have to happen at his inauguration for it to be notable. I still don't think that his inauguration, (or that of any president), is notable enough. FFMG (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The number of people present at the inauguration, not to mention the extensive, global media coverage it engendered justifies it's inclusion in the article.--jeanne (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? If it was so important to you, you might want to add it to 2009 in the United States, after all it is the article about event in the US, not this one. FFMG (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Every US Presidential inaugural is listed on these Year articles. Why single out the Obama inauguration, for deletion? GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would turn the question around and ask, why is the inauguration listed in every year, (when it is not even mentioned in 2009 in the United States or United States year articles)?
This was my original question really, we don't mention most elections, (unless they are really special for some reason), and we certainly never mention any other inaugurations, (not even China, India or Russia who are super powers and/or have 4 times the population). So what makes the US inauguration special? What makes this US inauguration special? There are many inaugurations, and it is a fairly straight forward event that has happened 43 times before?
Shall we start listing all the inaugurations/elections?
As I asked originally, will I be able to add the election, (and inauguration), of the South African president later this year? After all it will only be the third? If not, why? FFMG (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If ya wanna remove all US prez elections & US prez Inaugurations from all the YEAR articles? be my guest. While you're at it, exclude all the Pope elections aswell. Whatever ya do, don't single any out, include (or should I say exclude) them all. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand? Where did I say anything about removing the election? And what has the leader of +1.3 billion people elected every 20 years or so have to do with the inauguration of another that happens like clockwork every 4 years? I don't think we don't mention the Pope inauguration, that would be just as inconsistent.
I am also amazed at your statement, don't single any out, are you joking? we don't include almost any other leaders election? And we certainly never mention their inauguration.
You are also ignoring many of my questions/point so I will ask again, will we be able to add the election, (and inauguration), of the South African president later this year?, Or mention the inauguration of John Atta Mills as president of Ghana on the 7th? FFMG (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll answer your no-doubt rhetorical question: no, the inauguration of the national leaders you cite won't be added because, bluntly, they're not very important. You know this--you'll not be adding them, after all--so the only reason for putting these examples forth is out of some peculiar notion of equalising unlike events. The inauguration of Barack Obama is a unique and historic event, and not just because of the racial politics of the United States: it marks a sea-change in the relationship of the US with the rest of the world, a change marked around the globe and even broadcast live world-wide. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we please put the photo of the inauguration as it is very historic. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
With respect, my first thought when reading that the inauguration shouldn't be included was "you're kidding, right?". This is a historically notable event. Fifty years from now, it'll be recognized as such. When I was watching the live coverage I'd never heard the word "history" so much in one day. fwiw, I'm a Brit. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but when Obama won the election, us outside of America sorta got the point he was going to be the new President. Why do you have to add another event signaling out the day he is inaugurated? It's to much. Though I dunno if my opinion matters, I saw someone unilaterally declaring it stays, not sure if they were an admin or what... (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)