Talk:2005/Archive 2

Removed entries such as minor plane crashes, troop deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan etc, because they are events which happen relatively frequently and do not merit mention.

The consensus was that virtually no anniversaries should be put on the page unless something extraordinary accompanies the event (massive protests, huge ceremony). Thus things like anniversary of Oaklahoma, V-Day, start of X war, independence of X country and so on should not be included or else the page gets cluttered. Psychobabble 04:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2005 was the year that HDTV came to public speculation despite that it was kinda available in the lasting months of 2004, 2005 was the year that HDTVs recieved wide speculation. Thats a big event. Also this was the year HD console gaming was introduced to the public and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray evolving . Plus the year portable gaming was revolutionized with the Nintendo DS and PSP though they the DS were released in 2004 it recieved wider speculation in 2005 and some areas had the PSP released in 2004 but recieved wider speculation in 2005. Also 2005 was kinda a reborn for the Pop Genre of Music. Kinda. Cause Hip-Hop and Rap was taking over in 2004 then some songs like You're Beautiful and A Moment Like This changed that. Also Unfaithful and Unwritten. Anyways just suggesting 2005 isw like a new era. This should have more information and 2005 is like the year of a new civilization. I mean HD recieved wide speculation this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.140.139 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor added the death of the Pope to April 2 events. I reverted it since his death was already mentioned in the deaths section, but does anyone think that this particular event ? I'm inclined to say no, as his death had no immediate worldwide effects, and Pope Benedict XVI's installment is listed shortly after. DDerby 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this one, I'd say leave it in for the moment, but maybe it should just be in the deaths section. Psychobabble 02:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think transport accidents, save genuinely large ones such as the Titanic or a full jumbo jet, should be on this page. They are common events affecting very small portions of the world's community and 99% of the time have no long term impact. They aren't like terrorist events which are reflective of broader struggles or patterns, they're just (essentially) random happenstance. A disproportionately high number of entries on this (and other) year pages are public transport crashes compared to the impact these things actually have on the world. I strongly propose we split all such events off onto a "Year in Transport Accidents" or something page. Psychobabble 02:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They can have big consequences. Rail crash in the UK at Hatfield caused the renationalisation of the rail industry.Astrotrain 12:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

They can, but they usually don't. If they do (and this will only be apparent with hindsight) then perhaps they're worth a mention. But for now, take a look down the list and tell me that the number of accidents mentioned isn't excessive. Psychobabble 00:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say keep the Japanese one, and move the others to 2004 in rail transportAstrotrain 17:55, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for co-operating, I will do that when I get the chance. Psychobabble 03:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, your additions to the entries obviously add a lot of information to these pages but that isn't what's wanted here. That sort of (useful, informative) information is (or should be) on the page relating to the actual event. This page is a summary of the years events which is in constant danger of becoming bloated and useless as something people can scan to get an overview of the events of the year. Please keep with the style of the current entries in future. Psychobabble 10:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the following:

• Delete the month templates which take up too much room and look untidy
• Delete the "fictional events" section Astrotrain 11:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Do we really need to mention the events of Big Brother and Pop Idle over important things like the French ratification of the EU constitution? Some of the crap people put on this is ridiculous

What's wrong with the month templates? They're kind of handy and they're on the right of the page, so fairly out of the way. But I agree with the fictional events and would possibly add to that the future events, that's always filled with silliness. Psychobabble 01:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the links to the date pages is already on the page, and the month templates take up too much room, which would be better served by images. Astrotrain 09:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

following sentence under October 1st seems improper: "An Australian photojournalist in Afghanistan, Stephen Dupont, films US soldiers two dead Taliban militias' bodies." Could there be some clarification?

• Could this page, and others like it, feature a summarized list of essential events of each month, presented in limited phrase for speedier reference? User:Abacussavage 03:36, 27 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Is the installation of Mordechai Vanunu as Lord Rector of Glasgow University trivial? It was a fairly big formal event, only takes place once every 3 years, and notable because the university was compelled to hold the ceremony in his absence. Any comments? PatGallacher 22:42, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

From what I see the Lord Rector is an honorary post which has little (practical) local let alone international impact. Look at previous years, did anyone think the 2002, 1999, 1993, 1984 Rector's were worth mentioning? Do you have a clue who they were? Did they actually do anything? These pages should have a historical perspective, we simply can't include minor local happenings because we'd have to do so for everywhere in the world to be unbiased. Same goes for the scottish socialist party leader thing. Leaders of political parties change ALL the time worldwide, are you suggesting we include them? Show me why the change of leadership of the scottish minority party is more important than the changes of leadership in the Australian Democrats party which controlled the balance of power in the Senate at the time. I'm positive there are dozens more local examples, we can't and shouldn't include them all. Psychobabble 00:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue of what is or is not notable can be a subjective one. However looking at this list we see bus crashes which only killed a small number of people (these things happen all the time regrettably) and even an earthquake in Japan, a fire in Madrid, and a ship accident in Denmark which all killed nobody, also the Super Bowl (do many people outside the US know what that is?). Are they all notable? We do still have the change in leadership of the Australian Labour Party. How important does a party have to be before a change in its leadership becomes notable? The SSP has 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament, also this was not a routine leadership change, it happened after his predecessor Tommy Sheridan resigned a few months earlier under controversial circumstances, this was headline news in Scotland for weeks. Actually, I can tell you who quite a few of the previous people to be Lord Rector of Glasgow University were. We had a deletion dispute a few weeks ago over John L. Bell (admittedly one of the less well known holders of this post) and it was decided that all people to have held this post were inherently encyclopedic. Sometimes an election has had an impact, as did happen with Luthuli, and has happened with Vanunu e.g. the Glasgow Herald newspaper has launched a campaign for his release. He is hitting the headlines anyway, which makes developments about him interesting. Is there some POV pushing here? Any comments? PatGallacher 09:36, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

The Scottish Socialist Party is a minor fringe party, with less than 0.1% of the vote in the UK General Election. Whoever leads them is of little consequence in Scotland, nevermind internationally. The same goes for the rector of Glasgow Uni. This is an honourary post with no notable role in international affairs. I wouldn't even list these events in a 2005 in Scotland page they are so insignificant. Astrotrain 12:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The SSP has 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament, one of only 6 parties in Scotland with more than one seat. The recent vacancy for convenor attracted a good deal of attention in the Scottish press for several weeks. If this isn't POV pushing I don't know what is. PatGallacher 20:44, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

The SSP leadership attracted sparse press coverage in Scotland, a few lines in the UK press, and none internationally. This is the page for international events, not localised events of no consequence. It matters not who leads the SSP, as they have no power whatsoever. Six regional list seats in the subordinate non-sovereign Scottish Parliament is not a reason to include them here. It is more POV pushing to include them here, as most Wikipedians agree that only events of international significance or interest is appropiate here. Astrotrain 16:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the events listed here are confined to one country. The controversy over the SSP convenorship did not attract "sparse press coverage in Scotland", it attracted quite substantial coverage over several weeks. Whether this makes it internationally significant is debatable. PatGallacher 16:49, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I have reluctantly been persuaded to accept that some of my additions were not sufficiently notable, but I draw the line at this one. User Psychobabble justified this deletion with "As much coverage as it's getting on liberal blogs, Galloway's testimony was trivial." As well a being a bit POV, I also suggest that something getting "much coverage" is not trivial. It did not just get much coverage on blogs, it was headline news on TV and the papers in Britain. It involved an important, if controversial, public figure in Britain, defending himself against major challenges to his integrity, it also involved a major political body in the US, and touched on one of the most controversial issues in international politics in recent years, Iraq. If that isn't notable what is? PatGallacher 10:03, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

I'll start of by saying I'm a liberal and I reflexively cheered (inside) on reading the transcript. But seriously, look at the big picture. It's the only member of an insignificant British party standing up in the US parliament and spouting off 15 minutes of run of the mill Bush criticisms. So what? Will it achive anything? Did it cause conservatives world over to go "oh, we were wrong about that Iraq thing, sorry"? Will it exonerate him of charges? Does anyone really care who doesn't follow the minutae of Anglo politics? Sure it got coverage, but so has Kylie's breast in the last week, coverage is no measure of significance. If something actually happened beyond a known windbag doing what he does best then it'd be worthy of inclusion. As it stands it isn't.Psychobabble 22:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that the fact the Senate have now altered their website to remove Galloway's testimony - and replace it with the lie that he "did not submit a statement" shows that it was an event of some importance, at least as far as the Senate are concerned - and certainly should be of importance to any American citizen. [[1]] [[2]] Shedden 14:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

We appear to have a 2-1 vote to include this item. PatGallacher 10:04, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

This is still ridicoulously trivial. The "senate amending the website" thing is right up there with republican congressmen inserting the phrase "designed to protect sexual predators" into official transcripts of Democratic amendment proposals. It's stupid little partisan games, not evidence of a coverup or anything which could actually affect anyone's life anywhere. Hot air is all Galloway speech is I can't for the life of me see why we've put this up on the page, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Anyone? Psychobabble 01:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

What does or does not count as a notable birth for this and other recent year pages, where the children born are unlikely to have done anything notable in their own right? We include royal births, fair enough perhaps, but we are including some relatively minor royals e.g. the 5th in line to the Norwegian crown. We also have the children of the Beckhams and the Blairs, I know they seem a bit like royalty in Britain at present, but does that justify it? If we include them, why not the children of other celebrity couples e.g. Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton? PatGallacher 11:21, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

As nobody has responded to this comment, and having considered the issues here, I have decided to be bold, and delete a non-notable birth, the child of the Beckhams. The justification is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore while it is difficult to predict what will seem encyclopedic in 20 years time, we should make some attempt to do so. Somebody being born to celebrity parents will not seem so in 20 years time. Does anyone disagree? PatGallacher 01:50, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

• I completely agree with the deletion. Birth lists should only begin receiving significant length long after the year has ended. DDerby 06:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm interested somebody agrees with me. As a staunch republican, I regret to note that birth lists for recent years will mostly consist of royal children. Even there, we should ask ourselves, will this person still seem like a notable royal, meriting a Wikipedia entry in their own right, in 30 or 40 years time? Leo Blair just about passes the notability test as the first legitimate child born to a serving British PM in about 150 years, but that is an exceptional case, in the normal run of things celebrities have children all the time. I note that Cruz Beckham is just a redirect to his father, I may raise a VFD on this. PatGallacher 10:35, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Britney Spears' child comes under this issue. PatGallacher 23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

May 19 - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith released, effectively ending the Star Wars saga begun by George Lucas in 1977

Ending? I thought episodes 7, 8 and 9 were on the drawing board? See this for example. Anyway, for this entry perhaps ending should be replaced by completing or filling in or something. I don't know what word to use, but ending doesn't seem right.

Sorry, but that site is a hoax, see SuperShadow. George Lucas has said himself that Episode III will be the last Star Wars movie he does, so the VII, VIII, and IX rumors have been more or less axed. Of course, musicians go on "My last concert tour EVER!" all the time... Anyway, it should probably read "...effectively ending the Star Wars movie saga...", as there will still be the new TV seriesi, video games, novels, comics, etc, etc. 63.188.145.241 20:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently not. See Development of Star Wars Episode VII. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

From the article: Kingdom Hearts II, arguably the most anticipated Playstation 2 game ever, will be released.

I know these year articles have different NPOV considerations than the rest of Wikipedia, as they are inarguably more subjective, but can we really say Kingdom Hearts II is the most anticipated PS2 game ever? I mean, the original was a good game, sure, but the series has a fairly niche audience due to its inclusion of Disney characters. In the past there was Metal Gear Solid 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, Final Fantasy X, and probably quite a few I can't remember that had alot more hype behind them than KHII; and in the future we have Final Fantasy VII-2, Final Fantasy XII, Okami, and Soul Calibur III, which, again, tend to overshadow KHII (especially in the E3 coverage I saw, and the Final Fantasy games didn't even have an apperance there, if I recall). This item just seems unecessary and POV to me, and I think it should be struck. Any comments? 63.188.145.241 20:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What does the release of one video game has to do with the entire year? The onyl electronic entertainment reference that would make some sense is the Xbox 360 release in the fall, due to it changing living room entertainment with all of the connectivity features to previously independent devices. That, or the Windows XP 64 and Longhorn releases.

Can I also raise the inclusion of forthcoming releases of "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children"? This can hardly count as a significant event in global terms, although I can see it might be important for some individuals. Perhaps those individuals should buy themselves a diary, and not waste our time with it. Someone, please agree with me, so we can delete this information.

Greece winning the Eurovision Song Contest just about merits inclusion, but not I suggest a detailed account or the preliminary round, this should go into the article itself. I have separated out future months, this is going to have to be done fairly soon, we may as well do it now. PatGallacher 17:05, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

We generally haven't included awards shows, Oscars, Tonies, Grammies, Logies yada yada, because they happen every year. I realise it was the first time Greece won, but does that actually make it significant? Now, if the band went on to become another Abba, definately put it in reterospectively, but for now I don't see it merits inclusion. Psychobabble 23:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree, Eurovision is not of any interest or notability, as it is basically a poor quality talent contest. Astrotrain 11:22, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed all but one of the annnual sporting events on this page. We have to be consistent about this, we either include none but truly earth shattering contests or we include all. These should be on the 2005 in sports page, but not here. They simply aren't notable. The one I've left is the soccer final, if there's nothing particularly earth shattering about it then I'll remove it too. Psychobabble 21:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They returned, and I've removed them again. I'd say events need to have notable international attention - so I've left in Lance Armstrong's seventh Tour de France and the UEFA Champions League for the moment, but I'd have no complaints about the Champions League going too. Average Earthman 13:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Could I include Fernando Alonso ending the 5-year string of consecutive titles by Michael Schumacher and becoming the youngest Formula One champion ever? Oops - forgot to sign in. JCCyC 15:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would do it but I have no idea which need deleting and which moving up. --Celestianpower 4 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Personally, I think the scheduled events section could be deleted wholesale without any loss of useful information. I don't bother cleaning it up - it's simply not worth getting into edit wars over a section which is going to be eliminated with the passage of time anyway. If anything trivial makes the transition from the scheduled to the actual events sectino then I'll get rid of it, as it stands I couldn't be bothered. Psychobabble 5 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

This first query applies to all years, I raise it here because it is more likely to generate discussion. How do we deal with deaths which are not just the run-of-the mill death of a notable figure e.g. notorious murders? In some cases the murderer may be notable but the victim is not. Do we record it under deaths, in the main events listing, or both?

Also, this page is nearing the recommended limit. The present Deaths in 2005 listing is not satisfactory, do we shift the Deaths section of this page to the latter, overwriting this, and tell people to add new deaths there, or what? PatGallacher 15:13, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

I've deleted 2 deaths already in the main section, but I'm having second thoughts, I think we should move all deaths to a separate page. I will do so. PatGallacher 15:23, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Is the release of the DVD of the first season notable enough for the scheduled events section? I've only seen part of one episode of this and so am not in a position to judge its worth, but I'm of the opinion that only exceptionally notable releases should be here (e.g. Harry Potter and Star Wars are fine). Thryduulf 12:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

First elections in iraq since 1985. Check. Ten killed in worsed school shooting since columbine. Check Desperate Houswives released on DVD. Che... uh wait ARE YOU DUMB? Get the fuck out --81.99.232.56 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

it says in january 3rd, here was the Assassination of the Governor of Baghdad, Ali Al-Haidri. however, in the deaths section, it says january 4th. does this mean he died on january 4th due to someone attacling him on january 3rd, or is this a mistake? DaBoulder 12:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The July 6th Parliamentary vote was significant enough to warrant a mention in "In the news", so I fail to see why it then wouldn't also deserve a mention here. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There are many, many, many parliamentary votes all over the world which are mentioned in the news. Unless there's a particular reason why one is historically significant, preferably on an international scale, thern it shoulnd't be included. Take a look at how many votes from the US, Australian, South African, New Zealand, UK, Japanese, Indian, Russian parliaments are on the year pages. Think about how many hundreds of votes, especially unsuccessful ones, could have been recorded for all of these countries. And then please try and convince me that that particular vote was any more important and historically significant than the hundreds which aren't mentioned - I've read the wiki page on the law and it certainly doesn't seem all that significant to me. I'm not being sarcastic or flaming you or anything. It's just the way these year pages work - not everything that is newsworthy can be included or else it spirals out of control. Psychobabble 03:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it was an unsuccessful parlimentary vote is not why it is notable. It is notable because it was the successful defeat of software patents in the EU, the EU is notable because of it's size and the ammount of software created there. I've rephrased the disputed point, everyone, please let me know what you think of it. Thanks to both of you for trying to keep the encyclopedia complete and not filled with trifles. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your formulation is unfortunate as it causes POV problems by connecting the directive with the concept of software patents (which is what the whole controversy is all about), but the issue was definitely a for the on-line world prominent one that went on for some years. Wikipedia itself already attested to this, because with "In the news" I meant the Wikipedia template. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoever is messing with the Births section needs to leave it alone, there were three names on there and they are now gone. This is not funny and should be considered an act of vandalism.

Actually, see an earlier discussion, we decided that very few people were notable enough to be included in births at birth, although someone may have got over-enthusiastic by deleting all of them. Children of celebrities e.g. Cruz Beckham are not inherently notable. PatGallacher 01:38, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Since we avoid staements that date, I am removing this. Rich Farmbrough 21:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed some non-notable entertainment releases from the future events section (movies, music albums) from 2005.

Some general guidelines for year pages:

• A release should only be mentioned once. For a notable work such as a film or music album, only mention the first major release date. Further major releases (in other countries) should not be mentioned. Notable DVD releases of films should only be mentioned in the rare situation that there was no earlier major cinema release.

• Only internationally significant events should be listed in year pages. These should include at most the year's one or two most significant releases in each medium (film, book). Releases that significantly change a market, industry, or technology are probably notable.

Entries that might merit removal:

• October 4 - The Complete Calvin and Hobbes will be released.
• November 17 - Another generation of video game consoles will begin with the release of the Xbox 360. (note that this is a hardware release)
• November 18 - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is released in the U.S. and UK movie theaters.
• The Broadway adaptation of Pink Floyd's The Wall is expected to be completed and begin playing in mid-summer.

Comments, please? DDerby(talk) 07:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just about every single pop cultural or entertainment hardware release is non-historical and won't warrant a mention in the actual year page. I don't bother worrying about the future events sections, though, there's always a bunch of junk in there. Filter things when/if they move to the actual month sections. Psychobabble 06:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

would it not be better to do these 'recent' years' articles in prose, organized by topic, not in list form? After all, we have the list of events by month, and if 2005 isn't a coherent account of the trends and events of 2005, Wikipedia won't have one. User:Dbachmann 21:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Who wrote the follwing Garbage? "Eugene wishes to confirm that the treatment of certan members of the homosexual community by certain members of the Wikipedia community has been brought to the attention of the Homosexual Regulatory Authority and will no longer be tollerated amongst our kind. Any further illicit remarks made by those that have little respect for their fellow brethren shall initiate a homosexual revolt amongst those that wish to make clear their attitudes towards those that have made clear their attitudes towards a society that deserves better recognition in a world that refuses to allow its fruit blossom. Yours disdainfully, Eugene Wilson" -

Might I add that this is a form of Vandalsm and should be checked. Since most of us on here have been here since 2003, more and more of us see this as Vandalism, those who are younger or new to Wikipedia should delete this comment and tidy up the article to it's proper state.

I will report Eugene Wilson to the Wikimedia Foundation as an EXAMPLE of Vandalism.

A good answer would be "an idiot". Its bullshit from a vandal. And it has been checked, and deleted, a number of times. --Kiand 18:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

...This does not qualify for an entry on this page. If every trial that recieved a little attention recieved an entry on the page, the page would be 10 MBs. To avoid an edit war, I'll bring it up in here and seek additional opinion. Should the Trial of Tali Fahima ends in a plea bargain line be removed? Trilemma 19:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That would indeed be the case if there was an entry for every trial that received a little attention. However this did not, it received quite a bit of attention, not just in Israel but internationally, with an international defence campaign, and coverage in e.g. The Guardian. PatGallacher 19:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that there is a main Deaths in 2005 page, there is no need to list every Tom, Dick and Harry who has died in 2005 here. It looks a bot odd listing Pope Jon Paul II, Prince Rainer of Monaco, then having the likes of the Lord Leuitenant of Northamptonshire, and the mother of a Canadian ice hockey player. Astrotrain 15:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there were too many deaths in this article, but the new list omits several very significant deaths. The omission of Rosa Parks, for instance, is astounding. Pburka 00:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that there were far too many removed and started to do research and add some of them back in. Rosa Parks, John De Lorean, Johnnie Cochran, Richard Pryor, Jack Anderson, to name a few which are I believe important enough to have remained. Also, unless it is in the works, these names were not even added to the death section so that they are absent all together from the year of death. Doc 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with adding back Rosa Parks and Richard Pryor. The others I am not sure about, a celebrity lawyer is not really well known, a journalist even less so. Astrotrain 13:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, with the television coverage that the Simpson trial was given there are few if any that do not know the name Johnnie Cochran and Jack Anderson was wideley syndicated in paper all across the United States Doc 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous IP, 212.219.142.86, has been vandalizing this page incluiding the ignored error and irrelevant info about Christmas that said December 25-Christmas lol.If you can, block him/her. juan andrés 06:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"February 25 - American police apprehended the so-called BTK serial killer Dennis Rader 31 years after his first murder"

The term "so-called" should not be used. Please refer to Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid. Please re-phrase or remove.

"September 21" 2 articles on the same line, needs a carriage return between. Could not correct error personally.

"October 4" - Hurricane Stan hits Mexico and Central America, killing over 1. "Killing over 1" is either a typographical error, or is making a joke out of a statistic or lack of knowledge of the figures. Needs correcting, or deleting.

Toronto has declared the year of the gun on this year (2005). What is that crime rate which is said there, high or low?? It's very confusing. -Pika ten10 (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The page currently reads to say that 2007 has replaced 2005 as the warmest year since "reliable wide-spread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s". At present there is no mention of this in the article for 2007 --Maurice45 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an erroneous entry about the Statute of Catalonia:

* September 30 - The Parliament of Catalonia passes, with 120 plus votes and 15 against, the Project of New Catalan Statute of Autonomy, proclaiming in Article 1, "Catalonia is a nation".

• The Statute and its very importance (high, low) are subject of a very emotional discussion in Spain, we should be very careful about this.
• It does not proclaim "Catalonia is a nation" in any article, but in the preamble, which had enormous consequences on the legal status of this declaration: In the opinion of the Spanish Government, the preamble has a declaratory but not legal value, since the Spanish Constitution recognizes the indissoluble "unity of the Spanish Nation".
• There is already another entry about the Statute of Autonomy in this year, in November the 2nd. I think one is enough.
• IMHO the (unique) entry should correspond to the begin of the effectiveness of the Statute, in August 9th, 2006. But, as there is no entry about it in 2006, I will leave the one here without further discussion.
• Of course (of course!) the information in an article about 2005 in Spain could and should be more verbose. But this here is the worldwide view.

For more information about the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia: Catalan Statute of Autonomy --MoredanKantose (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is an edition war about the designation of Victoria de los Ángeles as Spanish or Catalan soprano.

I consider pretty absurd to designate somebody according to a region of a country, which is unknown by many people, instead of the country. But I guess this edition has something to do with nationalist feelings, so I have edited it as "Catalan Spanish soprano", I hope everybody is happy now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoredanKantose (talk • contribs) 09:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of domestic and non notable entries in this article.
I left a few that are border line cases, such as some bombings and so on.

Let me know if you think I missed any or if I took something out by accident. FFMG (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED27%20Jun%202005%2017:22:47:223
  • In 2005 on 2011-05-25 07:54:37, 403 Forbidden
  • In 2005 on 2011-06-11 13:22:10, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, he has 10 other-language Wikipedia articles, at least 3 of are only one line + picture, reference, and tags. I question whether he belongs here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)