Talk:2005/Archive 1

I don't know the format for current years very well -- are the recent changes here made by an anonymous user correct? They look wrong to me. Jwrosenzweig 00:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This still looks wrong to me. Anyone know for sure though? Jwrosenzweig 19:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, just an occasional visitor, but the new page format with the gray boxes is hideous. The old form was much easier to read and just generally looked nicer.

Navbox template
I've tentatively added a navbox template to replace the rather unattractive navigational elements at the top of the page. Dicussion at WikiProject Years. -- Seth Ilys 23:51, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Please cite Dubious Distinctions
International year of Microcredit? Year of Physics? Initially, I thought these sounded made up. If you add year themes like this, please cite them with a link or they will be deleted. At least tell us who has made this designation. Google gave me this: on microcredit. UN designation makes more sense than, say, Clusterworld's year of the dual core CPU. MPS 16:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about the 400th Aniversary of the Gunpowder Plot?
In the list of events I'm suprised that the 400th aniversary of the Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot seems to have been overlooked.

Conventionaly the discovery of the Gunpowder plot is deemed to have taken place on: 5th November- 1605

The 400th aniversay of the discovery of the plot will of course NOT be lost on the inhabitants of a certain English town.

Yes, but this English town is not relevant to the world, most likely. --YixilTesiphon

Eh-- just in case you don't get it, he means London, and Guy Fawkes. It is an incredibly well known piece of history an deserves a mention.


 * Is the 400th anniversary notable (has there been notable celebration, etc) or is this just 400 years after something notable? --SPUI (talk) 15:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question
So, movies belong in "2005 in Film," but there are a bunch of films listed? So only the important ones get listed here? -LtNOWIS

Oil Stuff
That mention of oil in the U.S.-- is it appropriate? D. G. 23:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. I will delete it after writing this; there is no evidence that usch an event will take place in 2005. --YixilTesiphon

I agree with the Peak Oil/Thanksgiving prediction (see history) being deleted:

''November 24 - Peak Oil. Geologists predict the global peak in oil production to occur on Thanksgiving Day.''

However, I think my contribution (the one that the above comments refer to) (see history) was legitimate (Unknown Dates section):

Oil exploration in the United States of America will cease due to the amount of energy recovered per unit of energy expended in oil exploration falling to one unit .

I gave a source, and this is significant. Even more significant, from that same source (which mentions several other people), is the prediction that global oil production will peak in 2005. Brianjd 08:14, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Except for this one site, I've never heard that this will take place in 2005, much less as silly a date as a specific day. Do we really need to have a "contested neutrality" thing here? YixilTesiphon 04:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro links
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005&diff=9023030&oldid=9009352

"That link formulation is confusing."

The links common year starting on Saturday and calendar both point to articles of the same name. Surely it's not that confusing, and this is more informative. Brianjd 09:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)


 * The problem, both with this attempt and the one that used to be on the 2004 page (&ldquo;the link is to a full calendar&rdquo;), is that the linked phrase common year starting on Saturday was followed by text telling readers to follow the link to a calendar, and then calendar was linked as well. Which link was being referenced, then?  One would suppose that the first link was a definition of common year starting on Saturday, and the second link was to an actual calendar of 2005, when it was actually the opposite.  It was well-intentioned, but quite confusing, even if you think not.  Do we need to define the word &lsquo;calendar&rsquo; here?&mdash; Ford 12:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

"Fascinating" information on roman numerals
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005&diff=9026718&oldid=9023746

"That was fascinating."

I think that not only was it fascinating, it was also appropriate. Brianjd 10:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)


 * Number-game trivia? That belongs on a person&rsquo;s home page, not an encyclopedia article.  On New Year&rsquo;s 2002, a friend said, &ldquo;Enjoy this year.  It will be the last palindromic you will get to experience.&rdquo;  That was also true.  And I see, to my great amusement, that someone has posted such trivia on 2002 and 1991.  Had we better post a notice on 2112, so that future readers have something to look forward to?  I am going to remove those palindromic notes also.  After all of the time we spend arguing about which events are important, surely this doesn&rsquo;t come anywhere close.&mdash; Ford 12:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Keep the months separate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005&action=history

What's with the arbitary grouping of months? Brianjd 10:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

2005 in Switzerland
Huh? Brianjd 10:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Do these really belong here?
Why is Ash Wednesday listed? It happens every year. There's some sort of precedent for when it will fall (my religious teachings are failing me in my old age). So why is it listed if there's nothing significant about this specific year's celebration?

Movie releases: Why list them when they haven't happened yet? Especially when they could be pushed back or, although rare, moved up.

Dismas


 * Ash Wednesday is listed as a scheduled event. There is of course nothing special about that particular day. Hovever, it is useful to keep it, and other similar festivals/routine events (eg the Superbowl) for now, as they give readers an idea of how the year is going to map out, and key dates for changable events/holidays. When the day comes, it can be removed (unless it is a particularly notable Ash Wednesday) Astrotrain 17:22, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * For me Ash Wednesday is a religious day. So do not make sense put it on the calendar. Fupis 0:29, Jan 6, 2005 UTC


 * SuperBowl, World Series are US-centric sport events. Despite the name world series concern only for US. RedSox won? UAU! Very Good! But, what is RedSox? SuperBowl is in the same way. I am from Brazil and for me this kind of sport event do not matters. Or do you want to know when the brazilian Football League starts? I dont think so... Fupis 0:29, Jan 6, 2005 UTC


 * My opinion: generally, if it's on another "2004 in " list then it doesn't belong here. So films and sporting events: nope.  Religious holidays aren't necessary. 1) Ash wednesday is christian-centric and 2) if we put all religious holidays on here then we just added a lot.  So dump them as well. Chinese new year: not necessary either as we don't mark other new years. Cburnett 00:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed March 7: St. Eubulus Day. According to, March 7 is indeed the memorial day of St. Eubulus, just like March 17 is the better known St. Patrick's Day. But in fact every day of the year has one or more patron saints, and I don't think we want to list all of them. Aleph4 12:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

 * Given the violent year in Iraq during 2004, and the likely continuation in 2004, what Iraqi acts of violence are appropiate for this page? It may be inpractical to list all bombings, deaths etc as they could overwhelm the page??? Astrotrain 17:22, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * You could make a separate page for "2005 in terrorism". --YixilTesiphon 04:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's obviously impractical to list all violence, but major acts (such as the assassination of the governor of Baghdad) should be included. 2004 saw plenty of violence and that page isn't overwhelmed with it. If anything it's a bit light on info. As for putting it on a '2005 in terrorism', that would be definitionally incorrect as many of the attacks are on military targets which, by definition, is not terrorism. Psychobabble 23:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * True. "2005 in Conflict Zones"? --YixilTesiphon 04:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nth-anniversary listings
I removed two listings for upcoming Nth-anniversaries in the "Expected" section (one for the 60th anniv. of Auschwitz's liberation, one for the 1st anniv. of the Opportunity rover's landing). As far as I'm concerned, these are just clutter unless the anniversary itself is significant ("the Nth anniversary of the start of X, surpassing Y") or unless something significant happens at an observance of the anniversary ("at a gathering to mark the Nth anniversary of X, Y happened"). Of course, the two items I removed are still in the history, and can be restored if necessary; I just wanted to discuss this before too much time went by. - jredmond 19:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Several of us stated on 2004 that all anniversaries should be dropped, unless of your second kind. The example that I used there was the massive protest in Hong Kong on the anniversary of the Tian An Men massacres, which was an important political event in itself, as a direct challenge to Bei Jing.  Routine observances are not significant.  D-Day was historic; the moment when D-Day was exactly sixty years in the past was not even remotely historic.  The examples I can think of for your first kind do not happen by yearly increments.  John Paul II and John Howard will move up in the ranks of longevity in their offices after a precise number of days, not years; and nothing short of number one is worth noting anyway.  (When George Bush finishes his second term in January of 2009, with how many persons will he be tied for second place?) &mdash; Ford 20:29, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * I thought I had seen a discussion about this someplace else - just couldn't remember where. Thanks! - jredmond 20:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Listings
It would be helpfulif users did not list obscure sporting events and every bit of bad weather we get! These are not notable enough to be included in this article. The same for deaths, chess players and sisters of dead Presidents are not notable. Please look at 2004 page for an idea of notability. Astrotrain 21:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * And I would say that your idea of notability is very arbitrary, the snow storm that talk off put down 38 inches in the Boston area, the most since 1978, I would say that’s a noteworthy event, I see the sports events as being no less important then the FA cup or premier league info on here, as well as political events, and who is to say whose death is import or not. --Boothy443 21:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The FA or premier league would also not go on this page (but could go on the 2005 in sport or 2005 in the United Kingdom page. There already is an abudance of weather entires in Janaury, all by the same user who seems to edit weather, geographic based articles. If the system is important, yes it should be included. As for deaths, the year page should list all notable (by that very famous people, leaders, heads of state etc), others can go in the Deaths in 2005 section. Astrotrain 22:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then "be bold" and move them to the appropate catagories, rather then just deleting them off. --Boothy443 22:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * actually i agree with Astrotrain in some of his removals. This page is fairly new as 2005 has just started and the contents that existed here before much of 2004 took place.  In general, a format was established for 2004, which arguably is the best pages for each individual years.
 * Obviously 2004 is a model of excellence. It has the same troubles as this. --YixilTesiphon 01:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Many people who has some sort of achievement die every day, there is simply not enough room or justification to list them here, nor is it practical in listing them here. However that late night talk show host deservers a spot here.
 * For storms and bad weather, as long as it doesn't have the effects of those tornadoes that hit florida last year and caused billions of dollars in damages, I do not believe it is noteworthy.
 * They were hurricanes. --YixilTesiphon 01:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * and who cares if Donald trump gets married 100 times? he may get the credit for marrying the most, but that is a laughable entry for an encyclopedia. This is not your journal entry or some records to keep the "interesting" things.
 * For Superbowl... -__- this page is not the place to list your day-to-day hobbies or pasttimes. Only if something important or significant deserves an entry here.
 * OK, but European sporting events deserve no more mention than American ones.
 * as for the expected events, we should keep whatever is there and only remove it when their time comes and proves to be insignificant.  LG-&#29356;&#22812;&#21449; 22:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Table format
I notice that a user has recently changed the layout of the page to a table format. I am not convinced that this has improved the page, and the format has not been extended to any other pages. Does anyone think it should be kept, or reverted? Astrotrain 15:11, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * REVERT, REVERT!!!! It's HIDEOUSLY ugly. ARGH! Get it away!!!


 * ah... yes, I'm in favour of retaining the existing style for year pages.


 * zoney &#09827; talk 15:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of whoever changed to a tabular format, I've unilaterally switched back to the bullet format (in case of doubt, this isn't a revert but an edit of the most recent tabular-format page). I took the liberty to tidy up a few items, fix a few links, and make the formatting consistent at the same time. FWIW there probably is some scope for a nicer layout, but that wasn't it... -- Avaragado 21:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bulleted list is probably the second worse way to present tabular data next to no formatting at all. I strive for readability over aesthetics and a bulleted list is far from an optimal readability solution. I've used this table format all over and have received no input as to what a better solution is. I'll cry "REVERT, REVERT!!!! It's HIDEOUSLY ugly. ARGH! Get it away!!!" to a bulleted list of tabular data as the article stands, except it's not the aesthetics I'm complaining about.

By all means, pose a better format. And Avaragado, it was not a unilateral switch to tables if you include the dozens upon dozens of other tables I've created with zero feedback. Cburnett 21:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Followup comment: wikipedia contains a lot of tabular data but no good/consistent way to present it. Most notably: filmographies like Kathy Bates.  The readability compared to a table is absolutely horrible.  So, by all means tell me a better way to present tabular data.  I'm dying to hear it.
 * Also, Astrotrain has it wrong. There are many pages with a similar table.  For example, 2004 in film and 2005 in film.  Even on Talk:2004 in film I have it stated that I desire feedback.  3 weeks later, I have none. Cburnett 21:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I initally liked the table format, but I think it is not suitable for a page which is constantly being edited, as not all Wikipedians know how to format tables. I think list is easier to format. Astrotrain 21:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not the argument here. It's aesthetics not maintainability.  Try again? :) Cburnett 21:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Re "unilateral": from my perspective, it was a sudden, major formatting change that introduced an inconsistency with the other year pages. In situations like this it is a good idea to at least warn in advance; for such a major change it would be better to present your proposed design, and ask for feedback, before implementing it.


 * I think your design has a number of problems, including maintainability and usability as well as overall aesthetics. Good design balances all factors rather than emphasising one at the expense of the others. -- Avaragado 23:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:BB :) Cburnett 23:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes - BDBR :-) -- Avaragado 23:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, no one else to comment? Can I get rid of the lists? Cburnett 08:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I will take any change by you of this sort as volunteering to go through each and every year and change it as well, and as volunteering to maintain every such page also, when editors bungle the markup, which they will inevitably do. But then, if you had started by volunteering to undertake such an enormous task, I&rsquo;d have replied that it was very nice, but not very credible, of you to do so.  This will be a huge change and beyond any one editor, I think.&mdash; Ford 12:39, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)


 * First, I get your point. That being said, I find it rather laughable that I am the only one who could convert and/or maintain such a basic table structure.  Your point is on par with saying "you agree to edit an article on wikipedia, therefore I will take said edit as you volunteering to fix every article and maintain the whole wikipedia.  Do you get my point?


 * Obviously, in creating the table and having previously converted it I have some level of volunteerment to edit and maintain the pages. However, just like with any other edit, I don't sign anything in blood.  Neither do you, so why do you essentially expect it for this? Cburnett 04:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, consistency is important. It is not the most important thing, but if one year should be formatted with a table, they all should, and changing them all is a major undertaking. Second, I have listened to your discussion so far and am concerned that you seem to have taken a lack of further objections as a withdrawal of previous objections, and I cannot see how you can reasonably do that. You have addressed some of the concerns of some of the objectors, but hardly all of all. Third, you have argued that this is about aesthetics, not maintenance, and many here simply disagree with your premise. Just because there are others who can maintain a table does not mean that most can, or that a table is not a huge entry barrier to new editors. Your table looks better, but it is much harder to edit and maintain, and will require, for consistency, the reformatting of all years on the encyclopedia. Not every editor who maintains the year pages maintains this year. You may well run into resistance on other pages. What then? You are making a minor (and debatable) aesthetic improvement at great cost. I do not think that aesthetic improvement is worth it. And in practice, I think you are committing all of us to something more difficult, rather than just yourself. Most edits are unique to a particular article. In those cases where an edit has a logical extension to many other articles, it is usually shot down. I know this from personal experience. Given a chance, though, I really would change every affected article by myself with a few of my proposed changes; but in doing so, I would not be requiring further work from anyone else. &mdash; Ford 14:20, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)


 * Readability is more important than consistency and that's what I'm doing this for.
 * I consider a lack of further discussion as a removal of objections or lack of desire to continue the discussion.
 * I have never argued it's about aesthetics. Apparently you haven't been paying close enough attention.  The objections to my table have been aesthetics.  I do it in the name of readability.  Perhaps you completely overlooked the "HIDEOUSLY ugly" objection?
 * You'll have to excuse me for saying this, but your arguments don't make sense. You're objecting to these changes because it imposes on the community instead of just me.  Wikipedia is not an individual project.  All changes concern the community, yet you single this change out like it's an exception when it's not.  That said, I have never stated I will leave it for others to do but I also said I wouldn't spend my life doing it.  Or am I the only one not getting paid?


 * While I'm at it, do you have any justification for blatantly accusing me of starting something and not finishing? Considering my # of edits outnumber yours 9 to 1 (or maybe 10 to 1) I think your accusation is rather baseless.  I never said nor demanded anyone finish my work, so please stop dancing around like I am.


 * What distresses me most is that time is wasted on discussion tangential to the point at hand. Instead of discussion on the format--how to improve it, what's a better solution, etc.--you desire to engage in discussion in the ancillary: consistency, your belief that I'm objecting about aesthetics, how it will get done, who will do it, etc.  Cburnett 20:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of starting something and not finishing. I accused you, if you must use the word, of starting a project that is really beyond any one person who isn&rsquo;t getting paid, as you correctly note is true of all of us. But perhaps, when I have amassed an edit history as extensive as yours, I will think nothing of the prospect of reformatting a few thousand pages.

Are you really not arguing aesthetics? First, readability may be a functional concern, but it is a functionality of appearance. Second, Astrotrain argued for more consideration of maintenance issues, and you dismissively said &ldquo;That's not the argument here. It's aesthetics not maintainability. Try again?&rdquo;, as if you are setting the criteria by which the proposal is to be judged. So perhaps I misunderstood that exchange between you and Astrotrain, but the import seems unmistakable to me. As for consistency and logistics, it is again not yours to determine what criteria the rest of us are to weigh. I have conceded that I think your table looks, or if you prefer reads, better. But I think consistency, logistics, and maintenance are all valid concerns. You think they are &ldquo;ancillary&rdquo;.

You think I do not make sense, and that is fine (though unwarranted) for you to believe. But since I saw myself as offering reasoned objections rather than personal accusations, I fail to see the significance of your far-greater number of edits, unless that makes your argument more valid, and mine less.

Finally, and this is my most important point, you are absolutely, fundamentally wrong to assume that because others in a discussion do not continually restate their positions it means that you have persuaded them. To the contrary: if they offer no further response, you should assume that their positions have not changed. I was just pointing out what I thought you were doing. Turns out I was right. I was not going to jump into the argument until that point. However little sense I make, I seldom make that mistake.&mdash; Ford 05:58, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)


 * Scratch the reply I had typed up. I'm tired of arguing and debating with you about what this debate should be.  The objections to my original table were entirely about aesthetics--plain and simple.  My goal is to make the data more readable.  The data is tabular and the only solution HTML provides for tabular data is tables.  A simple list of tabular data has a highly erratic border between data, which reduces readability.  There's no aesthetics involved in this.  None.  I'm here to find a solution that we can agree to to make it readable.  I don't give a hoot what that solution specifically ends up being or how it's done: so long as it's readable.  I'm sick and tired of arguing with you essentially over what we should be debating/discussing.  As far as I'm concerned, you've done nothing to further this cause but only stood in the way.  Prior to my original tables through now there's been little accomplished.  Instead of finding a solution, we're reduced to arguing about the proper path to find a solution (who will do it, when will it get done, why in the world should you expect the community to do anything so you must commit to do it yourself, etc.).  You'll have to please excuse my harsh tone and sour attitude now, but I'm getting to the point of saying #@&$*( it and moving on.


 * I have changed tabular data to "ugly" grey-boxes of data on more articles than I can count. None have been reverted except this page, which has reduced to an argument of ancillary topics when specifically focused on agreeing to a new format.  The problem of maintainability and such are a *GLOBAL* problem.  It is not just a problem of converting these pages to a table.  So I don't know what fire is driving you to stick that argument in my face and make me answer for it.  I would much rather find a solution and change it.  I'm an engineer: I solve problems.  I'm not a very good manager as I don't like to sit around and argue what you desire to argue.  So what do we do now?  Do we continue the debate on whether or not I'm really arguing aesthetics or why maintainability is not a 2005 article problem or that we shouldn't use tables to keep (what I believe to be) the minority of non-table-aware editors from participating on the page or what?  I *WANT* to find a solution.  I *DO NOT* want to type paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of replies such as this one.  Nothing would please me more than to delete this little debate with you and get back to what format we can agree to. Cburnett 07:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry this debate has become so personal. I will take my share of the responsibility for that. But you are, once again, arguing from a different premise. You want to find a solution. Others do not believe there to be a problem to solve. The lists work fine. They are readable enough. Your proposed &ldquo;solution&rdquo; is, in the opinion of several others, worse than the status quo, all things considered. But you seem unwilling to let us consider all things. You want to frame the debate around one issue, and you do not want to talk about anything else. But you cannot have it both ways. If you just want to be an &ldquo;engineer&rdquo;, fly in, solve a problem, and fly out, then you will have to wait until one of the &ldquo;managers&rdquo; tells you what the problem is. If, on the other hand, you want to help decide that there is a problem, then you will have to join the other &ldquo;managers&rdquo; in a discussion of all the issues that determine whether there is a problem, and if so, what it is.&mdash; Ford 12:32, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

New format
Any objections to this format? Only difference is the removal of the header row and border=0:

May
It addresses my readability concerns and leaves little to call ugly. Cburnett 22:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My feedback:
 * Prototype with a hard example, not an easy one. The sections that caused most problems in your original design were the ones that covered multiple months (March/April), had awkward date ranges (February 26-March 5), covered an entire month (the first event in January), occurred at an unknown date within a known month (August, October), and had multiple events per day (numerous). You've only covered one of those cases in this prototype.
 * I recommend using terminal punctuation to avoid inconsistencies where some bullets include multiple sentences.
 * What is your design for the "unknown dates" section? For the "deaths" section?
 * The left two columns should be top-aligned for readability when the right column straddles multiple lines. Sadly this means more table markup.
 * -- Avaragado 23:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response: Cburnett 00:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Break each month into it's own heading or bold them (as I show below)
 * For month-long events my solution isn't very different from status quo
 * For known spans then use 3 letter abbreviation
 * Liberal use of &amp;nbsp; because the pipe-method of declaring tables does not support the "nowrap" table attributes; if wiki changes then &amp;nbsp; can be exchanged for a "nowrap"
 * I don't get what you mean
 * Unknown dates can stay a bulleted list: there's nothing to tabulate, it's one column of data
 * Added table formatting; I think rendered readability more important than coding readability (but I can still read the code well enough to edit it)


 * I don't get what you mean: Some of the examples you're using have terminal punctuation (a final full stop/period) in the right column, some don't. For consistency reasons it's usually better to include terminal punctuation, especially when you've got full sentences, as here. The exception is the Deaths section, which is better without terminal punctuation (pardon the pun). -- Avaragado 09:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's hideous, but beyond that, I certainly have no experience editing tables, and I imagine most of my fellow nooBs don't either; so in the interest of egalitarianism, let's get rid of them. --YixilTesiphon 04:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess if I'm surrounded by people that care about aesthetics over readability, then so be it. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: a bulleted list is the second worst answer for tabular data.  It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the events lined up (the purpose of me adding tables) but you cannot do that with lists. Cburnett 05:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it less readable as well. Thanks for moving my reply, by the way. --YixilTesiphon 00:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Format #2
Using feedback from Avaragado.

August-December
August:

September:

October:

November:

Deaths #1
January:

Deaths #2
January:

Feedback to the proposed formats
Avaragado's feedback:
 * Add terminal punctuation everywhere except Deaths (see above).
 * Deaths #2 is better, but lose the enforced line breaks and use caps in the right column (eg First not first).
 * I'd drop the multiple-month sections: keep it simple, lay out August-December as with February etc.
 * I like the design overall; however, I think the markup's likely to cause grief for many editors. I'm tempted to say that a simple template could simplify the markup, but it would probably kill performance. What do other people think?
 * -- Avaragado 09:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett's Response: Cburnett 01:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, but that's not really a part of my design. That said, I think they should be phrases instead of sentences as it promotes brevity
 * The one forced line break was because it was smashing it all and names were split. Again, wiki doesn't recognize "nowrap" cell attribute.
 * Sure, whatever. :)
 * Ultimately I'm not sure how much of a concern this is. I don't know how many editors don't know tables.  However, I would suspect those that don't know & understand tables could copy from another row.  Worse comes to worse then someone can, uh, "clean up" or the person adds it to the talk page or just doesn't post it.  I guess this ultimately rears itself to the question: do we need to serve the lowest common denominator of editors?

LG-&#29356;&#22812;&#21449;'s response:
 * I just have to say that the boxes that appeared a few weeks ago is a definite NO. It does not enchance the readability at all and it only makes the page look more cluttered.
 * As for the new formats, i think "New Format #2" looks good. It is quite consistent with the format of 2004 and also it removed the redundant month in "feburary 1", "feburary 2"...etc.  The sub-header is sufficient.  This format also creates more spacing between entries, easier to read than the current editions of the 2004 page.
 * however i do have one suggestion and that is when multiple events take place on the same day, don't create separate entries, use the bullet format like that of the 2004 page.
 * if we were to go with one of these two formats, i vote for number 2. LG-&#29356;&#22812;&#21449; 01:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks LG for your comments. Please see 2005/test for a full article in the new format.  Please note the difference between Jan 3 and Jan 9. The 3rd is with separate entries regardless and the 9th has multiple-event dates in a bulleted list. The latter clearly shows they happened on the same date and I find the readability of both to be the same.  I don't mind either way. Cburnett 07:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the current format; tabbed tables, though initially promising, really don't add aesthetics or readability. DDerby 19:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Full article in new format
See 2005/test. It's the 2005 article entirely in the new format (with Death #2). Perhaps a whole page in format separate from discussion will make things easier. Cburnett 07:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding The List of Deaths
This year features a long list of deaths much greater in length than previous years' lists. In order to save space, I am deleting several less notable deaths and only leaving those relevant to society and/or history.

Failure to record the Cardiff Tsunami relief concert
Would anyone think it would be good to actually note down about the relief concert in Cardiff earlier this year? People did work hard for that, and simply cared that much that they raised a good load of money. It was the biggest since 1985 anyway.

Draig goch20 22:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deaflympics
After adding the "deaflympics" to the 2005 page, I was edited claiming "there were a lot of disputes about listing the main Olympics on the year page, let alone the Deafolympics (sic). 2005 in sports is more appropriate.". Why is it sill ok to list the anoucement date for the 2012 olympics, then?? Has anyone got any comments?? Rarosalion 02:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moaning
How do all these baseball players end up in the deaths section? If I try to add a footballer, it's gets removed for not being of historical significance, even if they did something historically significant in the game. Every other year has just about everyone in the deaths section. --Ben davison 11:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Launch of Cardigan Bay
Was the launch of the RFA Cardigan Bay on April 9 worth recording? I included it, but Psychobabble thinks it is not sufficiently important. Nobody has disputed that the ship itself is encyclopedic. The launch of a ship for one of the world's largest navies does not happen every day, or even every month. Is e.g. a new album from Bruce Springsteen all that important? PatGallacher 12:46, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * I would say the ship is not a significant addition to the Royal Navy to be included on the main 2005 page. It is a mere transport ship, not even an aircraft carrier. It didn't make any news impact in the UK even. Astrotrain 15:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * We simply can't include everything which is worth creating an encyclopedia page for. As for ships, military ships & subs get launched fairly regularly (take a look at china's MASSIVE expansion of their navy in the past few years) and aren't particularly noteworty events. Think, will anyone care about this in 1, 2, 5 years time? As for the Springsteen album thing, if it ends up as an actual entry (ie not just a "future" then it'll be deleted. We gotta keep trivia out of the list or it will get too clogged up. Psychobabble 01:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Number of Entries
I think the number of entries on this page is far too large. 2002 is, I think, a good example of what we should aim for. That entire year is about the size of the first four months of this year. It's much more readable and mostly includes only genuinely important events. This page should be a short, readable, succint summary of what went on this year. To this end I propose deleting the following entries but I thought I'd consult first: January
 * The Freedom of Information Act 2000 comes into force in the United Kingdom.
 * Turkey introduces a new currency, the New Turkish Lira, valued at 1,000,000 times the old lira.
 * In Germany, stage IV of the Hartz concept brings together unemployment benefits and social security benefits, despite protests.
 * A major storm system sweeps across the United States, and winter weather such as snow, ice storms and avalanches kill at least 16.
 * Mars Exploration Rover-A Spirit marks its first year roaming Mars Gusev crater.
 * The United States Navy submarine USS San Francisco runs aground near Guam, killing one sailor and injuring several others.
 * Photos of Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi at a fancy dress party cause worldwide condemnation.
 * Speed limits in the Republic of Ireland switch from mph to km/h. All speed limit signs are replaced, as well as old road signs with non-metric distances (from before the 1970s).
 * The Procter & Gamble Co. acquires Gillette Co. in a deal valued at $57 billion US, creating the world's largest consumer-products company.
 * A train crash near Bologna, Italy kills 18 people.

February
 * the Palestinian authorities and the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon agree to a truce at talks in Egypt. (they're always doing that)
 * Fire devastates the Windsor Building, a 32 story office block, in Madrid.
 * Airlines in Europe will have to pay heavy compensation to passengers for flight delays and cancellations under a European regulation coming into force from this date.
 * 2005 Quebec student strike begun.
 * The galaxy VIRGOHI21, which is made up of mostly dark matter within the Virgo cluster, have been discovered by radio telescopes, shedding new light on the theory of how the universe is held together by the gravitational pull of these dark matters and dark energy. Things like this happen all the time. It would be worth one of the small news entries at the start of New Scientist, not much more

March
 * Paul Schäfer, leader of Colonia Dignidad, is captured in Argentina after an eight-year disappearance. Two days later, he would be deported to Chile. Maybe I am just ignorant, but I don't see the lasting importance of this
 * Central African Republic to have its first elections since 1999. What does this mean? Have the elections actually happened or was it just announced? If the latter then I say delete
 * Suspects Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri in the bombing of the Air India Flight 182 in 1985 are found to be not guilty on all accounts.
 * Japan's Expo 2005 beginning east of Nagoya.
 * MG Rover, the UK's sole remaining volume producer goes into receivership after a planned alliance with Chinese manufacturer, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation collapses.

I'm not alleging that this page has any particular bias, though it might, I simply think it's too big and un-readable. If you object to any of these removals please be specific and detail your objection. (btw, speaking of too big, should some of this talk page be archived?) Psychobabble 01:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with most except: Astrotrain 14:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * MG Rover- important event for a major car producer
 * Air India trial- major legal event for a significant terrorist attack
 * Fire in Windsor building- sig event for a major world city
 * Prince Harry- caused sig. contraversey
 * Italian train crash- sig event in a major European country


 * I'd keep the Central African Republic elections too, provided we can substantiate it and get some after-the-fact, um, facts on it. - jredmond 15:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'm deleting. I disagree with some of Astrotrain's objections, but I'll respect them. There's a page on the african elections so i'll just make that entry more inteligible. Psychobabble