Talk:2010/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chinese earthquake

Is this one really significant enough to include? Compared to the Chile quake, it's not very big (6.9 vs. 8.8 magnitude); and as far as the death toll is concerned, it pales in comparison to the Haiti quake (400 vs. 230,000). Basically, even though this was a deadly earthquake, it's pretty much what one would expect a deadly earthquake to be--certainly nothing off-the-charts like Chile or Haiti. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it is "only" the 17th largest earthquake, by known fatalities, in the 21st century. The death toll is greater than the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake so if this is out then so should that be. Also, it is not a multi-national event. Perhaps a minimum of 1000 deaths should be the minimum for a single nation earthquake? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a minimum limit but I think it should be 500, as that is still quite a significant loss of life --AycliffeAngel (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of Icelandic volanic eruption in "March events"

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

The only comment I can think of is that you haven't really said enough for me to comment on. Why do you think that this should (or shouldn't--you haven't really said either way) be included? Does the eruption have its own article? Is there something particularly notable or unusual about it? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This volcanic eruption was more than likely the precursor to the volcanic ash cloud which is now causing chaos to European air travel. Perhaps it is too late to include it now, however one must look back with hindsight to see missed events. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish air crash deaths

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

UK air space closure

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

The UK is the only country to have a total closure but there are other airports in Europe that have closed and flights from as far away as New Zealand have been affected. This makes it a multi-national event. I'm just not sure it's notable enough, yet. Maybe we should wait a few days to see what the repercussions are? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is mater of definition, most airports are/were closed in Sweden, Belgium, France, Scotland but they did not call close the entire airspace down but they might as we have called it that.

You pretty much cannot fly over Northern France, (and that cuts a big chunk of Europe because of it).

The UK did nothing really more than most other European countries. Because of their geographic location they were amongst the first, (probably after Scotland and maybe Ireland).

Having said that, I think it is fairly notable, it doesn't happen very often that a could from a volcano brings so many country to an aerial standstill FFMG (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree (now). The entry is now per Europe rather than just UK which makes sense. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Reggie Faust, 16 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

December 21, 2010 - Total Lunar Eclipse over North America

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

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

Done - The solar eclipse was added.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. For the lunar information, it is not a given that it is considered notable enough for inclusion in the year's article. For example, lunar eclipses appear in 2009 but not in 2007. Also, for the Rosh Hashanah information, please provide a more complete citation for the Bible Code program (see WP:CITE); it's also not clear whether there should be a Major Religious Holidays section like in 2009, or just a Holidays section like 2007. Please discuss these changes on the talk page to establish a consensus before requesting another edit. --Darkwind (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entry. Solar eclipses are not intrinsically notable enough for this article. A previous discussion in this regard is here. This will need consensus before it is added. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Noriega

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

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

L'homme qui marche

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

Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771

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

Comment: the BBC are reporting that there were nine nationalities aboard, including "dozens" of Dutch citizens and "at least one British national". So there's a European as well as an African perspective; whether that makes it suitable or not I don't have a view on. It does seem to be, sadly, one of those things that happen fairly frequently. Perhaps this crash is more internationally notable because there was a survivor (a Dutch child)? TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that an non-domestic plane crash with over 100 deaths AND multiple nationalities should qualify for inclusion. If there were more than half a dozen such events every year then I would be less inclined to include ones such as this one. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2010 Commonwealth Games in "October events"

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

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

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

Air India Express Flight 812

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

Unlikely unless the death toll exceeds 100. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...which it has, so I guess it should be added unless there are further objections. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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

I have at several times tried to start a discussion on minimum numbers for disasters with no success. 100+ would seem sensible (with allowances for international/domestic and exceptions such as the Polish President's plane crash). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. 100+ should be a benchmark as it were, but we must also look at international significnce, such as the example you mentioned and possibly other notable factors, i.e a single survivor or something along them lines. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jamaican Gang war.

Should there be a post about the Jamaican gang war that took place today? At least 30 people have been killed, 26 civilians and 4 police. It was a raid on a drug lord's mansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJGeneral1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate for the general article about 2010. Is there an article about the raid? If so, you could suggest it for "In the news", but to be honest I suspect it's not international enough - it's a big national issue, sure, but doesn't really have much importance outside Jamaica (though I will note that it made the BBC news here in Britain). TFOWR^propaganda 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all over the U.S. here on CNN and the major news networks, this is why I asked. Apparently it's making international headlines. JJGeneral1 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh definitely - it's been on the news in the UK too. But it's still a national issue, even if it's being reported internationally. TFOWR^propaganda 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of where it is reported, this also appears to be a local event lacking international significance. ttonyb (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Philippine Election

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

That's one of the reasons it's locked. WP:RY suggests that, unless this is the first election in the Philippines, or historic for some other reason, it shouldn't be listed here; only in 2010 in the Philippines and Electoral calendar 2010. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless of course it is the US election, for some weird reasoning that I have yet to understand, that country can have its, very predictable, election listed, (as well as the result and the inauguration). FFMG (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove US elections from 2016 and 2020, and have been reverted. Oh, well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried a while ago to understand the logic with such blatant double standards.

Not only is the election listed, but the inauguration is as well, some of the reasons given at the time were comical at best. If you dare add any other country, (Russia, France, UK), then it is removed in a flash.

I've been against the inclusion of the US election and inauguration from the start unfortunately too many users seem to think that because those events are in the US they should be treated differently from the rest of the world. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking the recent UK elections as an example, the first hung parliament since 1974, even that is not as important as the US president taking a stroll down the street every 4 years. FFMG (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd probably remove every American election and inauguration except for Obama's, or I would at least set Obama's as the standard--e.g., exclude unless international notability can be demonstrated by a WP article (perhaps with some additional qualifications) about the international notability of the event. Obama, by the way, has at least four such articles: International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008; International media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election; International opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008; and (for good measure) Canada and the 2008 United States presidential election. But without something like that, US elections and inaugurations probably do not belong in these articles. Even as a politically active American, I find most US elections boringly predictable (e.g., when only two political parties, each four years, have any chance of winning), and I certainly see nothing inherently "includable" about them for these articles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

However, most people reading about current events of a year in English (as opposed to another language) would be from the United States, and would find the information appropriately included. People in other countries would likely read the page written and editted in their own countries language, which may or may not include the election. SheaF91 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be listed in 2010 in the Philippines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deaths

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

Erica Blasberg does not have any non-english articles, maybe she should be included in 2010 in the United States rather. FFMG (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, to be included in this article she needs to be internationally notable, which she isn't as evidenced by the lack of non-English wiki articles on her, and certainly not before her death except in golf circles which is why she should be in 2010 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am re instating Ms. Blasberg into the 2010 deaths...she won several awards an was an avid tennis pro. it's only fair to include her when we can include others. Sometimes I feel women on here are discriminated againstJdcrackers (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The reasons why she is excluded have been explained both heree and on your talk page. She is simply and clearly not notable enough. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why you post certain deaths of people that have no importance. Erica Blasberg won many awards and done many charitable things for our community! Fine, if you don't want her on there then you have her own your conscience not me! I think it is sad that someone as popular as Ms. Blasberg and you can not even put her death on May 9th! Your Call. I will find another way to get her on here! I just hope you can explain your actions for the other ones and I will find the ones and delete them too!Jdcrackers (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The criteria at WP:RY have been agreed upon by consensus of numersous editors so that only the most notable deaths are included in recent year articles. Persons who do not meet this criteria can be included in the relevant country or sub-topic article. Attempting to add someone who not only does not meet the minimum criteria (by some margin) but whose inclusion has been discussed here with the consensus that she is not notable enough would be tantamount to vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know Erica Blasberg, but her own article does not seem to mention any awards or charities, maybe those need to be added. Her article was created a almost 5 years ago, and in that time it was not translated into any other languages, (not even Spanish).

There is no doubt that she was known/popular on the Futures Tour, but I don't think she was that well known outside the US golfing circles, (or maybe only the LPGA). FFMG (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.227.251.64, 29 May 2010

Art Linkletter, Canadian born Radio and TV personality, died on May 26, 2010. This is missing from the lists of deaths for May 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter 71.227.251.64 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Linkletter does not meet the inclusion criteria in WP:RY. ttonyb (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bangkok Central World destroy

Probably be we need to add in this year's events. Central World is the second largest shopping complex in Southeast Asia. On May 19, Thailand political red-shirt protesters set fire and destroyed numerous of notable building in Bangkok, including Central World, and a Stock Exchange, and some banks. Joe2008 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a local event lacking international significance. ttonyb (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this news has been widely reported in the world. It has a strong evidence to support the news as a significant international events in this year. The following shows Some of the news links:

1. BBC: Clashes, fires and fears for future in Bangkok.
2. CNN: Thailand extends curfew in capital, provinces
3. CNN: Bangkok residents: This is a 'mini-civil war'
4. Daily Mirror: Central World on fire
5. Asia Times Online: Thailand going up in smoke.
6. CnnGo Central Bangkok shuts down as violence continues.

Joe2008 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of where it is reported, this appears to be a local event lacking international significance. ttonyb (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any objective rationale to support (the event appears to be a local event) ? Joe2008 (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty, the question that should be posed is really, "Is there any objective rationale to support that the event has international significance?" All it would take is one valid example to refute the local event destination. ttonyb (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Events

I realize that the editors are seeking to avoid putting every single event in this area, but are the restrictions are a bit too extreme? I mean is the burning of a few tombs in Uganda really the most important worldwide event to happen in March? Also, the lack of mention of the oil spill is an issue. It's the largest leak in US history and effects millions of people. Once again I understand the desire to avoid unnecessary tidbits, but current restrictions are resulting in a very anemic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.204.229 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can find international events for March then by all mean lets add them, but we are not going to add something for the sake of 'padding' the article.

As for the oil leak, as you pointed out, it is a US event, and it affects millions of Americans, as such it is listed in the 2010 in the United States, not here. FFMG (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would point you to the comment I posted about the oil leak in its dedicated section, for reasons as to why to include it. SheaF91 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

English wiki is not obliged to add events simply because other language wikis have added them. Those wikis may not have a guideline such as WP:RY because they do not have so many non-notable events added to Year pages. If something is not notable enough to be included in a month which has many events then why should it be included in a month lacking events? The requirement is that it is notable for the Year not for the month. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the New START treaty was the most significant development of March as it was a significant step towards non-nuclear proliferation. But my opinion probably dosen't matter anyways. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Falcon 9 internationally notable?

The maiden flight of the SpaceX Falcon 9 is listed for sometime this year, (the actual date keeps changing).
Do we really need to list it here? What is so special about that event? It is not the first Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, France, Russia and the US have been launching those for quite some time now, (looks like Ariane 5 successfully launched one a couple of days ago and is planning on launching another 5 this year alone).
So, why do we list this particular rocket here? Should it not be listed in 2010 in spaceflight rather? FFMG (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be far more appropriate in 2010 in spaceflight than here, if it ever actually takes off. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the first fully privately developed and funded heavy lift launch vehicle, which is really the limit of its nobility. Its launch date is June 4 (Friday); it's been at the Cape for months, but delays from USAF safety requirements and other issues have delayed it so far. It's already included in 2010 in spaceflight, so I've removed it from the section it was in. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think so too. Thank you, Jatkins. James Michael 1 (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I should correct that. It's the first privately developed and funded medium lift launch vehicle. The launch was (as most people probably know by know) almost flawless. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Music

Can the Tinkerbell's Fairydust song "2010" be included under music? Thanks Booknerd15 6th of June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booknerd15 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Isreali ship attack and Horst Koehler

I think that the attack on the aid ship by the Isreali army is of enough significance to be included. Although it is a local event, it has sparked mass protests across the globe - thus making it an internationally significant event. Also the resignation of Horst Koehler, I believe is notable as it is the resignation of a head of state, thus securing notablility as it did with the Polish President. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The UN Security Council is now holding an emergency meeting regarding the Isreali ship crisis - this must show international significance. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although it is a fairly minor incident, (in the context of the ongoing violence in the region), this one incident seem to have caused more responses than others for some reason. FFMG (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The IDF raid is in there now, and see below for a discussion of the wording. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

John Wooden

I've removed him as not being of sufficient international notability. Of the 9 non-English articles 2 are bare stubs with no references whatsoever, 3 are stubs with only English references, 2 seem to be a copy of the English article with only English references, 1 has references in its own language (but mostly in English), 1 full article seems to have only English references. This doesn't indicate any particular level of international notability, not for this article at leas, maybe for 2010 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. I didn't actually look at any of the non-English articles, I just added him because he had 9 and was included in the In the News main page template added here but was removed here per consensus (I was kind of wondering why he was mentioned in ITN). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

The current sentence mentioning this event:

May 31 – Israeli naval forces raid and capture a flotilla of ships which had attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza. Nine activists are killed and several dozen passengers and IDF soldiers are injured.

In my opinion, this sentence is misleading because it is missing major essential information. The missing essential parts which we need to add (without going into too much detail):

1. That the event took place outside of Israel’s territorial waters - this essential fact, according to opponents of the Israeli raid, has a strong influence over the illegitimacy of the raid.
2. That during the event a violent confrontation broke out on the largest ship of the flotilla - it is essential that we clarify that the takeover occurred with no real opposition and without injuries in five of the flotilla ships - and that only during the takeover of the largest ship of the flotilla ("MV Mavi Marmara") a violent confrontation occurred which lead to an escalation of the event. Not mentioning that the raid escalated only on one ship (without going into any further details) might imply that there was a violent confrontation on all the ships and/or that there was no escalation during the Gaza flotilla raid - but rather that the IDF soldiers’ initial target was to harm and kill the activists on the ships.

Therefore I suggest that the sentence mentioning this event should be rephrased to:

May 31 – Israeli naval forces raided and captured a flotilla of ships which attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza. During the takeover, which took place outside of Israel’s territorial waters, a violent confrontation broke out on the largest ship of the flotilla. As a result of the escalation Nine activists and several dozen passengers and IDF soldiers were injured.

TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the current comment is misleading. The purpose of these daily events is to provide snippets that evoke the reader to go to the main article, not to provide a detailed discussion of the event - one of the reasons for removing items lacking articles. Adding the statement, "took place outside of Israel’s territorial waters" could also be seen as an attempt to biased the comment, since as pointed out by TheCuriousGnome it supports the illegitimacy claim of the opponents. As for the statement, "a violent confrontation broke out on the largest ship of the flotilla" it adds unneeded detail to the snippet and is redundant. We already know it was "violent confrontation" - nine are dead and many more injured. ttonyb (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you can see that the current phrasing misleads the readers - it reads as "Israel sent soldiers to stop the 6 ships which attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza" ---missing essential information--- "Nine activists died and many were injured on the ships". In order for this sentence not to be biased we have to mention that this clash/surprise attack/violent confrontation only happened on one ship (if Israel's real intention was to harm/kill many activists on the ships you would have seen more dead/injured people on all ships). Does anyone else beside ttonyb think we should refrain from rephrasing this sentence? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite impressed with the current wording, to be honest. If the lead for Gaza flotilla raid could be condensed that well I'd be very happy. Taking the original two issues: (1) where this happened (International waters) doesn't tell the reader anything, they're left to infer what if "means" because we can't tell them any more yet. (2) I don't think we need to spell out that a violent confrontation took place - we tell the reader that 9 people died and many more injured. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But then the readers would read this as if Israeli military forces were sent to commit a massive execution mission on all 6 ships and they would never assume that the IDF forces did not expect a violent confrontation at all and ended up being attacked only by the passengers of the MV Mavi Marmara which were preparing a surprise attack (and ended up attacking them with clubs, iron bars, knives, stun grenades, Molotov cocktails and gunfire from pistols they snatched from the soldiers). This important escalation of the event (which otherwise wouldn't have been significant at all) eventually led the soldiers to open fire at the attackers, which resulted in nine "activists" being killed. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's reading far too much into it. My concern is that anything further is also likely to be misconstrued, so brevity is the ideal here. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 21:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article contains the detail, there is no need for excessive information on this summary page. In fact its inclusion here rests on the international reaction rather than the raid itself, otherwise it would just be another incident in an ongoing conflict. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, we only need to mention that there was a clash between Israel forces and people trying to break the blockade, and that's all, (well that's all we know without guessing). As it is now, there is too much details that has no real place here, (for example we don't need the words activists or soldiers, know know they were soldiers because we mention the Israeli navy, and we don't know if they were activists, some were passengers, journalists and so on, we just know they were trying to break the blockade). I have no doubt that Israel sees them as terrorists so we must try and remain neutral.

Personally, I don't even know if we can say that they were trying to break the blockade, surely they knew they didn't have a snow ball hope in hell of making it to the harbour. So we don't really know what they were trying to do.

As with every entries here, we don't need to add details about international reactions and so forth, a simple one or two line summary, (with no weasel words), is more than enough.

The reader can then click on the link provided to read the full article. FFMG (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the following statement is sufficient:

May 31 – In International waters of the Mediterranean Sea Israeli naval forces raid and capture a flotilla of ships which had attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza. Nine activists are killed and several dozen passengers and IDF soldiers are injured.

ShalomOlam (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that the current version, (that one editor keeps adding), has This was followed by a strong, mostly negative, international reaction., is this really the right place for that?

And there is no real need to 3 references, 1 is more than enough. FFMG (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromise solution

• May 31 – A violent clash erupts during an Israeli naval forces raid of a flotilla of ships which attempts to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza. Nine activists are killed and several dozen activists and IDF soldiers are injured.

What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The current version is sufficient. It contains the relevant information without any weasel words/POV or a level of information inconsistent with other entries for Recent Years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"current version"... heh. I just tried to fix the grammar and punctuation, and got 6 consecutive edit conflicts, with the text bouncing all over the map. I saw no evidence of compromise-seeking. My version, a grammar-fix to the version I first saw, was: May 31 – Israeli naval forces, in a raid which captures a flotilla of ships attempting to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza, kill nine activists.... Obviously, the passive voice is unacceptable here, as is the POV "routine" which was getting pushed in. Oh, for the simple english wikipedia. "Some ships wanted to bring stuff to Gaza. Israel said that that would help Gaza attack Israel. Israeli soldiers boarded the ships to stop them. The people on the ships fought the soldiers and injured some. The soldiers killed nine people." Homunq (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ps. I like the compromise solution ("A violent clash...") above, except for the passive voice. I'd replace the last sentence with my "simple English" last sentence above. Homunq (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"A violent clash" is unnecessary. 9 people were killed, hard to see how that would have happened without violence. It could also be considered weasel wordy. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I made an edit before seeing this discussion. I think that "clash" is absolutely necessary to show that the violence was bi-directional. And, here's my proposed text which is up there now.

"Nine activists are killed in a clash with soldiers, when Israeli naval forces raid and capture a flotilla of ships attempting to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza"

Thoughts on that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about "Israeli soldiers and pro-Palestinian activists clash during....". Then, the passive voice later on is acceptable, as the two agents are established up-front. Homunq (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The following comment was composed before the above comment from Bob drobbs was read: "Hmmm... on second thought, seeing how the passivised voice is being pushed on the article, it is to be suggested that the article is maintained with the verb "to kill" conjugated in an activated form. If the talk page were as participated as the passive voice were inserted in the article, consensus would have been obtained by now." After the drobbs comment, it was understood that Bob's edit was made in good faith, but the current commenter was still convinced that the article is not helped by the passive voice. Homunq (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the debate over here, i am adding a link to the reaction page which is not under a POV dispute. Feel free to change the wording, leave the link though.Lihaas (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your comment simply as too much detail. As stated above, "The purpose of these daily events is to provide snippets that evoke the reader to go to the main article, not to provide a detailed discussion of the event - one of the reasons for removing items lacking articles." If you feel it should be added, please start a discussion on this page. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This version doesn't reflect the consensus reached above. We should at least include that the event occured in international waters. --386-DX (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaction section

as per the above comment that "The purpose of these daily events is to provide snippets that evoke the reader to go to the main article" the article on the reaction is a significant article tha is 140k in size (will be reduces in coming days). it is not like the fringe articles on the participants, say.Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anyone supporting the statement, "This is followed by a strong, mostly negative, international reaction." Actually I see that others have removed it as well. Your rational for keeping it is flawed. The article you refer to documents a reaction to an event, not an event. ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree, there is no need for this extra sentence, (and there are too many references). FFMG (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I don't have much of an opinion one way or another on this, except that the words "strong" and "negative" might have contributed something of a weasel-word appearance to the line. So, I've had a go at rewording it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just another vote to remove it based on the reasons already given. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

religious info

per this edit [1] the editor who reverted said "some are clearly false and not done in other articles." For the former i would like to know what is false. For the latter WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason for removal. Either we remove all or none.Lihaas (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

January 1 having religious significance in Christianity is false. As for "not done in other articles", it's also not done in the WP:YEARS examples. If you think the changes should be made, get consensus in that project first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As per the link: "New Year's Day is the first day of the year. On the modern Gregorian calendar" --> "It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named" The requisit edit then says "a religious festival founded in Western Christianity though now globalized "

Then see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because it exists on other pages is no reason to keep it. And then the years link says "Be sure to cite everything in this section." The cites, as mentioned are provided. One can't have info for one thing and not the other.(Lihaas (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only justification I can see for adding the religious content to January 1 is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The site refers to other pages NOT this page. "In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project..."

, my addition refers to this page (as mentioned in the summary) for "consistent details"Lihaas (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What "consistent details"? And, some of the "holidays" are secular; "in India" was more correct than in Hinduism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The holiday (Holi) is not a pan-Indian holiday, as per for Nagaland, J&K (or the K at least), etc. It is a Hindu holiday, (albeit Diwali has an added caveat as rightly written) a simple link on there would add the caveat that it is not celebrated by the churches and mosques of india. (it is also celebrated in Nepal, btw (which should be added) and possibly Bali)

Which holidays with the caveat are secular? Other than new years, where i have already put the added caveat that it is not universalized as per WP:Common sense. yom kippur, rosh hashanah, christmas, Eid are secular?

(pardon me if this comes of as rude, i dont mean to) Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As this affects all Year articles the discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not accordign to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but anyways, ill discuss it there. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Religious_infoLihaas (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Easter

Per the section labeling Orthodox Christmas seperately, and with the caveat, from "Christmas" it is more globalized and NPOV to state the definition for both. Can't have it being euro=centric in its worldview.Lihaas (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

98 Ahmadis massacred while praying (May 28)

A group of terrorists with possible ties to the Taliban stormed Ahmadi mosques with guns and grenades killing 98+ innocent worshipers.

May_2010_Lahore_attacks

Is this newsworthy and internationally relevant enough to make the headlines here? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:Bold, it someone wants to challenge it they can take discuss it here.Lihaas (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it. And just to clarify my reasoning, this seems particularly relevant because it's a massive new escalation in violence aginst a group that has been oppressed for a long time. It has definite interest to Ahmadis worldwide, and to any human rights activists everywhere. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Being of interest to Ahmadis and human rights activists is not a criteria for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes this so notable in comparison to the Moscow bombings? This and the January terrorist attack in Pakistan should be in 2010 in Pakistan, no? --Kuzwa (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As such attacks are by no means rare the only factor which could make this notable would be scale. Is an ataack resulting in c. 100 deaths sufficiently rare to be notable, or should the minimum be some higher figure? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RY says this: "Events such as suicide-murders, kidnappings, school shootings, etc. do not necessarily qualify unless especially significant." I would argue that this attack is "especially significant" for two reasons 1) The scale. 2) It's a major _new_ escalation in violence against an oppressed group. Repeated attacks would become less and less notable; but this attack has special significance because of it's scale, and because it's the first such major attack against Ahmadis. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: Who was killed is irrelevant. Given that this event is in all other respects a domestic event its notability for inclusion in this article rests solely on the scale. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd still say that this event is "especially significant" because major attacks against Ahmadis are very rare (first time ever). But, if we want to look at precedent, terror attacks against British buses which killed 56 are listed on the 2005 page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:Recent Years guidelines were established in 2008 and were used in some small measure to cleanup 2007 but have not been applied to earlier Year articles (yet). And I repeat, yet again (as it doesn't seem to be ghetting through), that, as this is an ALL other respects a domestic event, it doesn't matter WHO the attacks were against. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm new here. But you and I seem to be reading the guidelines differently. There is nothing in the guidelines which says "domestic events" should not be included. The guidelines for this type of event simply say that it must have had news coverage in at least three continents (check), and that it is "especially significant" as compared to other events of this type. So, the only real question seems to be is if the scale of the crime, or it being the very first attack like this against this oppressed group makes this attack "especially significant". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears we are reading it differently. This is an international article, for internationally notable entries. Purely domestic events go in the relevant Year in Country article. Mere coverage in 3 continents may indicate international notability, it does not establish it (as news outlets are just as likely to make a fuss out of trivia as genuinely notable events). For events involving large numbers of deaths, such as disasters, accidents or terrorist attacks, if they directly affect only one country (ie all the deaths are citizens of that one country) then it is the actual number of deaths which potentially makes it internationally notable. The point at which the number of deaths becomes significant depends on the type of event. I have previously tried to start discussions to establish the minimum numbers for such events so that lengthy discussions such as this one can be avoided, or at least reduced, but with no success. If for instance the minimum number of deaths for a terrorist attack resulted was 100 (a useful round number) then any attack with >100 deaths would normally be included without further discussion. Terrorist attacks of <100 deaths would need to be internationally notable for reasons other than numbers of deaths (eg involving citizens of many countries, or multiple attacks against a particular group of people in several countries). As there is no such minimum trhis particular discussion rests on whether enough editors feel that the scale of this attack is internationally notable, and there is still no consensus that it is. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.40.109.115, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the 2010, November heading should have:

GM plans for world's first electric car with range extension (EVER) is planned for mass market in the United States.

68.40.109.115 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Maybe consider 2010 in the United States, but I suspect a company's plans aren't sufficiently notable for even that article. Once the car is released I'd suggest it may be notable - but at 2010 in the United States. TFOWR 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Marina Semyonova

Is she really notable enough for inclusion? As with John Wooden (see above) most of her foreign language articles are stubs cloned from the English article and using the English or Russian citations rather than the local language. Only one overseas appearance is mentioned in her article, is that sufficiently international? I hink for consistency she should be removed, but I may have missed something. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Per a google search she seems notable enough. Her obituaries mention her as being one of the first Russian ballerinas to be recognised outside Russia. The quality and the length of her Wikipedia article may be a generational problem i.e. quite simply few editors on wikipedia know anything of her to contribute because it was such a long time ago that she gained international fame. --Jkaharper (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Monsiváis

Removed as insufficiently internationally notable. Barely makes the 9 non-English minimum but the foreign language articles, apart from Spanish, are clones of (or very similar to, the English article before his death and are essentially stubs with a list of his works. None of his awards are international and no sign that non-literary activities had any impact outside Mexico. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Year for Priests

Shouldn't the Year for Priests be in this article, since it ended on June 11?

I think it should also be in the 09 article since that's when it started {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless it has its own article it is extremely unlikely to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the relevant Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's a Catholic event, one of the world's largest religion. {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doc's Arrival

In the Back to the Future movie, Doc Brown sets his time circuits to 25 years into the future.

Which is July 5, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.41.204 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall that, but, if accurate, it could be in the "Film" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cute. See Back to the Future#Future Day for refutation. I don't think we need report second-order fictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oil Leak

Should we write about the oil leak here?

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

Are you talking about the oil leak off the US coast? I ask because oil spills are sadly all too common. This spill is not, (yet), the biggest spill either.

So I don't think we should include that entry here, maybe 2010 in the United States. FFMG (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a very large event. Please include it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.119.111 (talk • contribs) 04:20,24 May 2010

How is it a 'large event', international and a first? I am still not sure if it is the largest spill ever, (it could be by now). FFMG (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not the largest oil spill in history (and probably won't get there), it is now widely considered to be larger that the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill and has become the largest spill in US history. It is an environmental disaster which is also affecting business along the Gulf coast, and is one which is connected to BP, arguably one of the largest corporations in the world. As for its...internationality, the slick is now in danger of being swept into ocean currents which have the potential to carry it into the territory of other countries. Cuba has already commented on this possibility, saying they fear for the ecological preservation of their coasts. As a first, well, you got me there, although possibly that this is the first oil spill over a minimum of 25,000 tonnes (and that's the low estimate) since 2003.

So I think this is worthy of mention. SheaF91 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, this event has been mentioned on at least the French, German, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Polish and Russian versions of this page; it seems like that is an indicator that this event has enough importance in the eyes of the international community. SheaF91 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Though it isn't by any means the largest, it is considered to be the worst environmental disaster in US history. See this article. Additionally, 11 people were killed, which, if we go off tradition on this page, is notable enough by itself. I say include. If not now, at least when it's over. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Being the "worst environemental disaster in US history" does not make it internationally notable, it makes it notable in the US. And what "tradition" are you referring to? 11 deaths is not a significant number, in international terms, for any accident and I can't think of one with that few deaths that has been included in a recent year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this disaster not mentioned regulary on the news in New Zeeland? At least in north Europe, where I live, it seems that all the newschannels and papers update about the oil-spill situation almost every day. There is also a risk that this leek may become an international disaster if the situation were to continue for an extended period of time before the leek is sealed. Hence, the absence of even a single line in wiki 2010 appears strange to me.RBM 72 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of international stuff gets mentioned on New Zealand's news; it doesn't make it notable from this article's perspective. The oil spill has been mentioned a lot in the UK, too: it still doesn't make it internationally relevant. I'd certainly agree that if this became an international disaster then we should reconsider. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by "tradition" is, it seems like many disasters resulting in deaths are included on this list. Additionally, there are various items included on this list that seem to have no international significance, such as the May 12 and May 22 plane crashes. I believe we should add it, as it has the potential to become a major disaster for both North and South America. Tourist towns in these areas have been devastated, causing many worldwide to be affected. The environmental and economic impact it could have is astronomical. If we don't add it today, I believe that once this situation spreads a bit more, it should most definitely be added, just as the user above me stated. But, as the user above him stated, it's strange that an extremely important event, even if only to a few countries, doesn't even get a single line, when these other events that only affect one or two countries are mentioned (such as the plane crashes or an art theft).Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm taking issue with is the WP:CRYSTAL aspect. Yes, this does have the potential to become notable. No, it shouldn't be added before it does. I agree that adding this in the future is an option, but not as it currently stands. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. Here's my reasoning: The Gulf of Mexico does not only border the U.S., but also Mexico, Belize, and Cuba. All of these locations have the possibility of being affected. Additionally, how much of the oil would have been exported, and how much have other countries lost due to this leak? I'm honestly not sure if there was any, but if there was, that needs to be taken into consideration.Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

...and when the possibility becomes fact, then it's not just one country affected. Until then, though, I'm still opposed. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really weirded out that my addition of the deepwater horizon event was removed with the reason "domestic event" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010&curid=43226&diff=367197471&oldid=367190895)

using this logic should we also not remove events such as the burj-dubai opening etc? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious... if the oil spill is not internationaly notable enough to be included - what about the earthquake in china on april 13. that only affected 1 country and was covered in the news for less time than the oil spill. what about the suicide bombing in pakistan on january 1? how is that internationally notable? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. It is probably one of the 20 largest oil spills ever, and certainly the absolute largest in the last 18 years. An earthquake, flood, hurricane, tsunami, etc. which met those criteria would be noted here; why not this? The fact that the disaster is manmade makes it more notable, not less. Homunq (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern, which I have hesitated to state until now, is that some people are against including this event specifically because it has so far only affected the United States and there may be a non-stated bias against including events, even ones of this magnitude, that affect only the US. SheaF91 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is because there is, or certainly has been, a definite bias to include US-centric events as they get more news coverage than similar events in other countries. This has only been corrected in recent years (2007 onwards) because of the WP:RY guideline. The problem with including nth biggest events is what limit do we set n at? 10, 20, 50, 100? And what happens when the current limit entry is displaced from the top n? Who is going to search back and renumber all the relevant entries and remove the previous nth? Even the greatest whatever cold be displaced next year, is its notability then reduced because it is no longer the greatest, or does it rest on its actual impact at the time (remembering that this is an international article and the impact needs to be international)? This event has so far not affected any other country, yet (at least not significanly). It is a major oil spill and it is getting a lot of news coverage, and would seem to be getting closer to meeting the criteria for inclusion in this article, but I am not convinced it ithere yet. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It definately is having a global impact - http://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/bp-share-price-slide-hits-uk-pension-funds-1989503.html for example. but I'd have no problem with not including it if we also not include the china earthquake and other single country items like that. I certainly understand any sentiment against including US-centric events (for the record I'm Australian). I'm only asking for consistancy. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

DerbyCounty, we don't have to set N for all time in order to decide on this one event. Far less do we have to go back and remove anything; if something was notable during its own year, it does not become less so by being supplanted. For the record, I live in Mexico, not the US, and this event is definitely considered notable here; and I happen to know that it's getting wall-to-wall coverage in Cuba as well, for local interest and not simply for geopolitical reasons. I'd suspect that other Caribbean nations are also very interested; fish and birds don't care too much about national boundaries. (BTW, given the new official estimates of the leak's size, it has definitely entered the top 10 all time oil spills). On the other hand, Whitehat, we should deal with this issue on its own merits. There's no call to remove any other events to make a WP:POINT. DerbyCounty, do you still feel strongly enough that you would remove this if it were added to the page? 187.143.9.250 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's my point, this event should be notable on its own merits not because it's the nth largest oil spill up to this point in time. I'm happy for it to be included if the consensus is to do so, provided it is on the basis of being an international event. If, for instance, fishing or wildlife in other countries was affected. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Derby as far as I'm aware it's only affected the United States which means it isn't of international notariety. (Yet) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

comment I have mixed feelings. But here's a very good site which shows the spill overlayed on google earth maps. It can be used to help judge whether his is basically a US issue, or if it's crossed into international waters enough to justify being put on this page.

http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/#

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because the oil has not yet traveled into international waters or waters belonging to a foreign country does not mean it has not had an international impact; business (BP here, a multinational corporation) and politics (other countries reactions to the event) have also been affected. SheaF91 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Took me a while to think about it, but it's clearly an "especially significant" disaster that's notable world-wide. My vote is to include it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

...So, when this becomes notable enough to be included in this article, who can do it? I don't know if it's because I've only started contributing to Wikipedia, but I sure can't, and I don't know if it's only moderators or notable contributors who can. SheaF91 (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

interesting... - I was able to modify the article and I only have rollback permissions. not that I'd do it again without consensus of course. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

S0 according to the logic of not putting in the oil spill, a big building in Dubai, a solar eclipse (really?), and the burning of a few buildings in Uganda are all more important that what may be the largest oil spill/environmental disaster in history. I think priorities may need to be examined here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.204.229 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have argued elsewhere that transient superlatives (*tallest building, biggest passenger liner, most expensive painting etc) should not be included in Year articles; the longest eclipse of the millenium is a sufficiently unusual (ie notable) and global event (certainly more so than all the other eclipses that users have tried to include); the "few buildings" are a World Heritage site and therefore by definition internationally notable (though admittedly only marginal for this artcile). On the whole I wouldn't object to the removal of any of those mentioned. And the priority for this article is "internationally notable" not "it's notable in the US therefore it must be internationally notable". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

done I added it to the article. It seemed that a majority of the recent voices in here wanted it. And while it was a smaller spill when this discussion started in May (WP:CRYSTAL), it's now being considered the largest spill in US history. If someone strongly objects, they can revert it and we can discuss it more. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring anonymous IPs who haven't contributed any substantial argument to this issue, there is no apparent consensus (I make it 4-4) for inlcusion, with all those against admitting it is nearly there but not quite. It would perhaps have been better to wait a little longer until international notability is clearly established but I won't revert (and won't object if someone else does). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuba braces to contend with BP oil spill- Havana calls in Venezuelan experts to combat potential environmental disaster as tarballs spotted off island's coast http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/16/cuba-braces-bp-oil-spill 70.179.119.111 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Exxon Valdez oil spill is in the list of events of 1989 (see March 24). This was a one-country event that was far smaller than the current Gulf spill, so it would be inconsistent not to include the latter. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RY guidelines were only formulated in 2008. They have not been applied to earlier years (apart from minor use in 2007 afaik); there in fact has been no definition of how far back "recent" applies to. Yet again I point out that the use of transient superlatives (if that is the only claim to international notability) in Year articles is problematic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the point that you are making, but I still disagree. I have no doubt that, twenty-one years after the event, a great many non-U.S. readers of Wikipedia immediately recognize the phrase "the Exxon Valdez oil spill". It was not transient, and it's inevitable that the Gulf spill will not be transient either. As for the required international significance, it has caused political friction between the governments of the US and the UK, and there is concern that the pensions of thousands of British employees of BP will be endangered if BP gets driven into bankruptcy. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Exxon Valdez as the previous "biggest oil spill in US history" is a transient superlative and a local event. As "one of the largest oil spills in history" it is transient (but a little vague) and international. The point is that the "biggest" now will (probably) eventually be overtaken so it's notability should not rest on that but on it's current impact (not if people remember it as people also remember trivial events) and as this is an international article the impact needs to be international. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to the discussion by stating that I agree with those who want the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to remain on the page. Other language Wikipedia's have it, and it should remain on this page. It is a notable event, a massive environmental disaster that has implications for all countries with shorelines on or near the Gulf of Mexico. It is a major event. Just because something may not effect dozens of countries doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. What's the point in these articles for every year if we're going to exclude major events that are obviously major all the time? There are some on Wikipedia who are using the US-centric issue to remove absolutely anything about the US as often as they can and it's getting to a point where it's becoming ridiculous. The oil spill is a major event, therefore it remains on the article and should do. Aurora30 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an international article, only events of international notability are included. Being significant for only one country (even the US!) is insufficient. Entries that are not internationally significant belong in the relevant Yeart in Country article. The oil leak has been included in this article because of its international notability, and there has been no suggestion that it be removed for 2 weeks so it looks like it will stay. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jan 6, 2010, Japanese attack

I was wondering if you can add this to the list of events,

• 2010 – Terrorist of the Japanese Whaling Fleet's Shōnan Maru delibrately ram and sunk the Sea Shepherd ship; the Ady Gil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.211.92 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the general relevance here, but we would want to avoid describing either the Japanese whaling fleet or the Sea Shepherd as "terrorists", per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Contentious labels. TFOWR 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also the assertion that the whaling vessel was primarily to blame for the sinking is actually POV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about just rewording it like in this link below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.117.9 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be justified for inclusion in 2010 when it hasn't been included in 2010 in New Zealand despite the fact that it continues to be a major new story in NZ. I really doesn't seem to be internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Russia-United States "Spy Swap"

What do you guys think? Should the 2010 Russia - United States prisoner swap be included in this article? It seems to have gathered some interest and is internationally notable, as well as being one of the largest since the Cold War. SheaF91 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced that this is particulalry notable outside US and Russia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. SheaF91 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Deaths in February

I think the death about Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili should be added to the list, who was killed when he lost control and crashed into a steel pillar during training, just hours before the opening ceremony of the 2010 Winter Olympics on February 12, 2010. I believe his death was pretty notable. -96.55.205.180 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

His career was never notable and all these new languages were created just because he was killed, people should only be included for what they achieved in their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.14.195 (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Argentina legalises gay marriage

"July 15 - Argentina becomes the first country in Latin America to legalise gay marriage."

This was significant enough to be featured on the front page of Wikipedia. Why was it removed from 2010? Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Because this article is not 2010 in Latin America. To be included an event must be internationally/globally significant. Being the first anything in Latin America is not internationally notable. Such an event would need to be the first in the world to be included here. That is why there are sub-articles such as Year in Country and Year in Topic. If users want to create Year in Region articles that would be possible, but given that no-one seems to have bothered with any other region i'd be surprised if it survived Afd. Being on the front page is no indiciation that anything is notable enough to be included here either, there may just be nothing else particularly notable on that day. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

March

There's one entry for March, which presumably most people would agree should be expanded. March 2010 is largely composed of events which would be rejected under the strict inclusion guidelines now being enforced, but there must be some other news events we can include. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need expansion if that means including events that are not notable. Just because there aren't many entries doesn't mean nothing happened just that the most notable international events of that month were ongoing events. That's just the way it goes sometimes. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

July 21, 2010 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 10:05, July 21, 2010 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

• July 4 - A fuel tanker explosion, following caught fire at local resident in Sud-Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, which kill 230 people, with worst road disaster in Congolese and Africa resion's history.

Would you care to explain why you consider these events not notable? There is a guideline for recent year articles here. Are you using that as a basis or something else entirely? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I also followed the guidelines to add some events, and all of those edits were subsequently reverted. I have left a note on the respective reverters' talk pages to discuss. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You added the South China floods. This is a local event, which is why it was removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Friday Night With Jonathan Ross

Indeed. Perhaps "... in British television", if there were such an article. I have doubts about "... in television" or "... in the UK". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks 25 July

Internationally notable or domestic event. I suspect it is the latter. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If it does stay, it would be nice to include a link to the article about the event - Afghan War Diary. SheaF91 (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that many nations participate in the Afghanistan campaign. The leaked documents refer to armies of several, and also of course to the multinational opposing forces. Derby, your suspicion would be better founded if you actually read anything on this topic before commenting. I think the entry should stay. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's about many nations why does the entry read: " leaked over 90,000 internal reports about the United States involvement in the War in Afghanistan"? And I'm perfectly capable of reading and forming an unbiased opinion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the entry was poorly worded. I fixed it a bit, comments are welcome. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa floods

I've been hearing a lot about the flooding in Pakistan. Over 1,100 people have been killed and Pakistan is already asking for international aid. Some countries have responded in kind, including the US and China. Should it be included? Discuss. SheaF91 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The death toll is similar to that of Hurricane Katrina so for the sake of consistency suggests it should probably be included. On the other hand looking at the List of deadliest floods it seems so far to only be about the 60th largest by known/estimated death toll, even since 1900 it sill seems to barely make the top 50, so perhaps it's not that unusual. I'd go for include unless there are convincing arguments otherwise. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft Inclusion:

• July 29 - Heavy monsoon rains cause widespread flooding in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Over 1,500 are killed, and more than one million are displaced by the floods.

How's that sound? We should find an article to include as a footnote, but I'm not sure of the protocol involved in that regard. SheaF91 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There really only needs to be a source which gives the death toll and the number displaced. That should be hard to find, but will need updating as new information becomes available. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For now, this should do: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/pakistan.flooding/index.html?iref=allsearch

I've also taken the liberty of posting what I have written above on the actual page. If it needs updating as events unfold, anyone can do it. I will check back in the coming days to see if it needs updating as well. SheaF91 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Weather

Shouldn't be there a section or just a reference about the abnormal heat waves and unusual cold temperatures and blizzards that have been felt globally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.35.72 (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that each weather phenomenons need to be listed in the countries where they happen.

The heat wave in Russia for example, Floods in Pakistan and China, those is not a world first by any means, so at best should be listed in 2010 in Russia, 2010 in Pakistan and 2010 in China, (for example). FFMG (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The heatwave is a worldwide event FFMG. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 Northern Hemisphere summer heat wave seems notable enough, but how to include it? It's quite general (in terms of scope) and has no specific start date. Possibly "May - August - The 2010 NHshw affects xx countries and causes an estimated xxx deaths"? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

'Worldwide' event, really??, it's funny, in my country it is quite cold, (and I am by the coast). If there was a world wide heat wave, I think I would have heard about it, in fact I don't think there is any heat wave anywhere in the Southend hemisphere. FFMG (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to include at least the Russian wildfires, if others find this inclusion agreeable. Within this entry could include the summer heat wave as a partial cause. SheaF91 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The heat wave is the "main" event and cause for the Russian wildfires. In my opnion both the heat wave and the Russian fires should be included. The heatwave article is currently a bit of mess that needs much cleaning. --Kslotte (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lance Cade

Is he really internationally notable? His career appears to be exclusively in the USA. Of the foreign lagnuage articles, 2 are 1 line stubs, most of the others are clones of the Enlish one with only English language references and 2 larger ones have no references at all. That he meets the minimum'' WP:RY criteria seems more due to the activity of professional wrestling fans than any genuine international notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• The same can be said for a bunch of American TV personalities that have passed away but still made the list. They're only most likely known in America and maybe Canada, yet they always make the list anyway. I'm sure Lance was more well known globally than some of those people who have made past Death Lists. - 01:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.150.125 (talk)

Absolutely! There are definitely a bunch of minor personalities who aren't really notable enough to be included. I'm all for removing them as well rather than including yet another. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Lance Cade should not be listed for the reasons given.

As for the others, if you think someone should not be listed here then simply bring it to the talk page so we can have a discussion about them. The WP:RY are only guidelines, if you want to discuss any personality, (or event), listed here simply bring them to the talk page. FFMG (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

It's about time we make this page look a bit more interesting. Any suggestions on what subjects could add to this page's visual appeal? Going from the events currently listed, I would suggest we include at least an image from the Haiti earthquake (which I could've sworn had a picture at one point on here) and possibly one from the Eyjafjallajökull (Iceland) eruption or from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (or both, if we're feeling daring.) SheaF91 (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem, (in general), is that pictures can easily break the display. So we have to be very careful as to what picture we add and where we add them. FFMG (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So, are you saying we need appropriately-sized pictures? I'm not sure what "break the display" means. SheaF91 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures which create whitespace in the text. Essentially the picture needs to "fit" (usually on the right hand side) so that is doesn't create a block of whitespace in the text. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. I'll look around for pictures, see what fits. SheaF91 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

...on second thought, perhaps I should leave this to a more practiced hand. Anyone who wants to (and has the technological knowledge) should post what they have added here so we may discuss if the picture is appropriate. SheaF91 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

August 18, 2010 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 13:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

• August 8 - A massible rain, following large scale mudslide in Zhouqu County, Gansu, China, kill 1,744 people.

There is a criteria in place for recent year here. An entry does not necessarily need a citation if it has its own article. Removal of long-standing (ie more than a week) content should be discussed BEFORE it is removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War; end of combat operations

The occupation of Iraq by US forces formally ended on August 19th as the last combat troops left the country. An additional 50,000 personnel are to remain in the country as support and in training roles, and are required to leave by the end of 2011.

I'm not too sure about this one; while I think it would be fine to include it, I have noticed that it hasn't gotten as much attention as other events (or even as much as it may warrant). What do you guys think? SheaF91 (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it should be added really, first of all the US has not really left Iraq, not by a long shot, and secondly, we didn't mention when the Polish, Danish or other countries left Iraq or Afghanistan so I am not entirely sure why this particular country claiming to have left Iraq should be any different.

All the US is claiming is that the are pulling combat forces out. FFMG (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment it's the US pulling combat troops out, which isn't really the end of the war (even if they say it is) if there are non-combat troops still there. The same happened in Vietnam, it was considered over when the US combat troops left. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, this shouldn't be in the list. Apart from non-combat troops, there are still other nations' forces present. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week and it looks like the consensus is to exclude this so I'll remove it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident

It is my understanding that an anonymous user attempted to add this event to this year's list a few weeks ago, but the entry was removed because the event was deemed to be a local issue. Given what information we have know about the accident, the miners and the international response (both NASA and the Pope have responded to it), it may be reasonable to include the accident in the list. At least, in my opinion. What do you guys think? SheaF91 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's clearly a local event. Widespread news coverage doesn't actually make it an international event. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What if there was more than one nationality represented within the group? There is 1 Bolivian miner in the group. SheaF91 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

Someone who didn't even get an English language article until after his death can hardly be considered notable enough for this article so I've removed him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is getting a bit ridiculous. I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline which states that for a death to be included in this page they must have had an article before their death, there could be a few people on this page who do not meet this criterion. Quite possibly he would have been notable before his assassination. Sometimes a person's notability can be increased substantially by the circumstances of their death e.g. Christa McAuliffe, Todd Beamer. His assassination has been highly controversial, with e.g. the British Foreign Minister accusing the Israelis of forging passports. He does pass the normal standard of notability with articles on 9 other Wikipedias (including the Hebrew). The Israelis evidently considered him to be quite an important figure, judging by the resources they put into assassinating him. PatGallacher (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RY has been amended to require that there be 9 foreign language articles before death. It doesn't seem to require that the English-language article exist before death. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Correcting myself: There doesn't seem to be a consensus for the amendment I mentioned before. I thought it was in effect, and it probably should be in effect, but it's not grounds for the removal. (I also don't think the death is notable, but my opinion doesn't seem to be agreed to.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That proposed amendment never reached consensus, due entirely to one user. The 9 articles is still a minimum requirement not the ONLY requirement. Disputed additions can be reverted until consensus is gained to inlcude. There is no such consensus so I will remove him again. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not enough to state "no consensus" ad nauseam, this could be a variant of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this an example of Zionist agenda-pushing? See [2] PatGallacher (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not in my case, and if I were you I'd be very careful about making unfounded accusations. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Should Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, or his assassination be mentioned somewhere in this article? Consensus can change (see WP:CCC). PatGallacher (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's sufficiently notable, and the event certainly isn't sufficiently notable as an event. It technically falls within the necessary conditions in WP:RY, but there still needs to be a consensus for inclusion. So far, only PatGallacher and possibly an anon has been in favor of inclusion and/or included him, and there are 3 editors who have expressed opposition and/or have removed the entry. Doesn't appear to be consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: inclusion of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Seems as "presumably notable" as most other entries in the 2010#Deaths section to me. Wikiscient (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient notability for an article does not mean automatic qualification for an article such as this one. The numder of deaths every year (see Deaths in 2010) is far to great to include here. That is why there is a criteria for inclusion. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh meeets the minimum (6 months after his death) but there are far short convincing reasons to exclude him. There are certainly some who have been included of equally, or even more, limited notability. That they are here and he is not is insufficient to include him, rather they should be excluded. Feel free to propose there exclusion on this talk page, along with the reasons why. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose He was not notable enough to have an article before his death. The only reason why one was created was because of the way he died, (and even then it was only created over 10 days after his death mostly to comment about his death).
  Other languages articles such as French (fr:Mahmoud al-Mabhouh) or Spanish (es:Mahmoud al-Mabhouh) only talk of the way he died rather than his life. Even the english article (en:Mahmoud al-Mabhouh) mostly concentrate on the way he died rather than his bography.
  Had he died peacefully in his sleep I don't think an article would ever have been created for him in the first place. FFMG (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical questions like this are irrelevant. Would Lee Harvey Oswald or Todd Beamer have been notable if they died of natural causes a few days after their actual death? PatGallacher (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As it was pointed out to you earlier, if you want to exclude someone, feel free to propose them on the relevant talk pages and reach a consensus, (Todd Beamer is not listed in a year article BTW, not even 2001 in the United States).

But you missed the point about most Mahmoud al-Mabhouh articles been, (for the most part), about his death and reaction to his death rather than his biography. Lee Harvey Oswald on the other hand has a full proper biography with a relatively smaller section about his death and the crime he committed. FFMG (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Has been an important event in retrospect of 2010. --156.34.75.159 (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – inclusion of the article. ttonyb (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone who is only notable for their death probably (almost certainly) doesn't belong. Jmlk17 20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shoya Tomizawa

His name should be included in Deaths for the following reasons.

• He has 14 non-English articles.
• He is the winner of the inaugural race of Moto2 in April this year, and ranked 7th right before his death.
• Yahoo! UK featured his death as the top article (not only sport, but "TODAY") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.175.86 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure why the article was removed. The article appears to meet the requirements of WP:RY. One would think that if the article meets the requirements in WP:RY it should be left and consensus gotten to remove it from the article. Perhaps DerbyCountyNZ can help us understand why the article would need consensus to be added instead of consensus to be removed. My best to all involved in the discussion. ttonyb (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed addition or removal of content should always be discussed on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached as to whther that content should in fact be added or removed. If an addition is not disputed promptly enough (say, within several days) but its inclusion is later disputed it stays until consensus to remove it is reached. (I hope that sounds clear, but I'm not entirely sure! :) ) DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the non-English articles they are almost all minimal, take his death and the tables and there is usually only a single paragraph. He won a few races but no international titles. His career was actually not particularly notable, there must be hundreds of living motorcycle riders with greater claims to notability. Putting it another way, if he hadn't just died in a motorcycle accident would he be notable enough for inclusion here? I don't think so. This is really another case of someone's death being more notable than anything he/she achieved while they were alive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Corneille

12 foreign language articles despite a quite small English article, is he worth a place in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 13:02, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think he is, though three of the Interwiki links were added after his death. Judging from the French and German articles there is basis for expanding this one to reflect his notability. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Virtually no evidence that his notability is sufficiently international. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Google News Search for Corneille + Cobra gives plenty of results, and not just European. New York Times also published an obituary. Favonian (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm basing the criteria for notability on what can be found in wiki articles. If the mimimum requirement is the number of non-English articles, then the next requirement is whether the quality of those articles reflects sufficient notability for inclusion here. At the moment Corneille's articles do not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mario Rodríguez Cobos

He has the nine foreign articles but his English article is not quite big enough, still worthy for inclusion? Ifore2010 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Many of the foreign language articles are stubs, and 2 haven't been updated for his death! There's really insufficient evidence that he's particularly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

WE need to add more stuff and put pictures in 2010 or people wont know the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by spb96 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately too many images break up the display of the page resulting in too much white space. Perhaps several images spread across the page would work? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis

Anybody else think that this shouldn't be on the list? I've been waiting for a while for it to be deleted because of its lack of notability, but to no avail. I would have done it myself, but that would have reduced the August section down to one entry, which even though I understand there's nothing wrong with that, I'm still a bit hesitant about. If we form a consensus, there won't be a problem with removing it. SheaF91 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. True, the tourists were from Hong Kong, but A) they weren't targeted for the nationality, and B) travel between Hong Kong and the Philippines is very common; so, the fact that people from Hong Kong were on a tour bus is not all that surprising. And true, there were some international reactions, but A) the existence of these reactions was probably due to media coverage (although, for some reason, this very well might be the first time since Typhoon Durian that the world media has focused on the Philippines); and B) the reactions seem to involve mostly the expected sympathy and condemnation--and not the sorts of consequences or actions that would have made this a truly "international" event. Still, it's a breath of fresh air to see a non-Western/Westernized country on the list (well, most of Metro Manila is rather Westernized), but I'm not sure that that's enough to keep it on the list. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removal for the above reasons. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And it would seem that somebody has taken the initiative to remove it. SheaF91 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The incident has caused an international attention and must be placed in the 2010 timeline. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case. There are three of us here (myself, Derby, and probably Latte) that seem to agree with leaving it out of the list. You may explain your reasons for including it, and they will be considered, but to demand that inclusion be granted for an event without reason is improper. SheaF91 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] @ Rizalninoynapoleon: ...the unstated premise apparently being, "All events that receive international attention must be included." But that is not the consensus either here or at WP:RY. We know the event received international attention. We're an international bunch of editors, and we've heard about it. It was a widely popular story. But popularity and notability are not one and the same. (Incidentally, your user name and page suggest to me that you're most likely from the Philippines. I've been there, and I've developed quite a fondness for the nation. But you and I have to be as objective as anyone else when arguing for or against inclusion on this international time line.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fud Leclerc

Another article with more than ten languages but a way too short English article, needs reconsidering for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Really it comes down to whether the Eurovision Song Contest is internationally notable. Although it's taken fairly seriously by some European countries it isn't by anyone else. Representing a country might be notable, but not even coming close to winning and actually scoring nil points on one occasion surely stretches the term "notable" (for inclusion here at least). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Valentina Tolkunova - 22 March

Does not seem internationally notable. Even though she passes the 9 non-English article minimum almost all those articles are similar in size to the Engligh one (barely more than a stub) most even less, except for the Russian article. There is no mention in the English article which suggests she was notable outside Russia. Surely a case for exclusion? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The date bot

Smackbot has delinked the dates and years from this article. Under Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items I would say that linking dates in the current Year article is "is germane (i.e. “relevant and appropriate”) and topical to the subject"? I've reverted the delinking ~in the meantime as it's a pain to do it after further edits. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Check the edit history. SmackBot delinked the dates twice today., at 11:16 and at 19:50. The bot's talk page has been notified, and Rich acknowledged the problem at 18:56. Unfortunately, the acknowledgement was about an hour before the second delinking. I think it's time to STOP the bot again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this sounds familiar... Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)