Talk:2007/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect

"Present time" still links here. Annecdotal evidence leads me to suspect that this is inaccurate, though I hesitate to change anything without further research... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.14.98 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Leap year

What on earth does "do away with the leap year" mean? You can't add a quarter of a day to the calendar without compensating somehow - it's not like we'll suddenly add 6 hours to our clocks each year. If someone can explain this (or link to an article that does), feel free to revert my erasing that particular comment (it's in december) Archtemplar 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Either someone's making it up for a laugh, or they've come across an article from exactly 33 days ago and haven't twigged the publication date yet. Average Earthman 09:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

2007 in fiction

Ive noticed that the "2007 in fiction" sction has been removed. Why? Just because the year is over, doesn't mean that we should ignore fiction written about that year, before it happened.Bob bobato (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet and technology news?

March 9 - The nicest guy in rock n' roll, Brad Delp, dies at the age of 55. We love you Brad! N2. That wont work on Wikipedia, somebody please work this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.104.242 (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

is it time that new media and consumer electronics got their own year page? If nobody minds, I'm gonna make one up. Kripto 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Great, Minor events such as 'New Apple OS released' can be taken out of these pages (obviously notable ones such as Apple iPhone and the huge world wide coverage of the massive product launch should stay).

September 11 is a Tuesday

September 11 2007 will land on a Tuesday for the first time since the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.34 (talk • contribs).

An interesting statistical note, but not notable for the article. Any given date will recurr on the same day of the week every 5 or 6 years. Erath 11:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
6. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It goes 6, 5, 6, 11 (due to leap years). Proto ► 10:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, what an arguement. Sometimes my birthday lands on Thanksgiving, too. Useight 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Future Japanese dates

Please help resolve the issue raised in Talk:Heisei#Future Japanese dates. `'mikka (t) 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Wrestlemania 23

There's multiple users reverting and re-reverting the inclusion of Wrestlemania 23 as a notable enough event for the article. So let's talk here about getting some consensus and resolving this dispute.

  • Which I'll start off with the same comments I put in TJ Spyke's talk page: I don't think it belongs because it isn't a competitive sporting event and lacks international exposure. I am not saying "I hate (professional) wrestling because it's fake" nor am I telling everyone I'm right because I edit the page a significant amount. Erath 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for taking this to the talk page instead of reverting relentlessly. I'm glad that there are still a few editors on Wikipedia that show common courtesy. Now about the issue, correct me if I'm wrong but the section of Expected events contains content from a wide a variety of categories. From the 79th Academy Awards to a note on Microsoft releasing Windows Vista. From the New Horizons space probe to the 52nd Eurovision Song Contest. From the National Eisteddfod of Wales to a Halo 3 release date. The point I'm trying to make is that nowhere does the section state that all content must be sports related. This basically makes your argument on deleting the WrestleMania 23 entry simply because of it not being a sport irrelevant. Now, I'm not trying to argue whether or not Wrestling is a sport. But on notability, I suggest you try out google for a hit count. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
WrestleMania is a very notable event, with people coming from all over the world to watch and being broadcast in around 100 countries. While it's true that it's not a real competition because the results are pre-determined, that doesn't away from it's significance. Bulletproof already said what else I was was going to say. TJ Spyke 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I think its lack of competition takes everything away from it - it stops being something in which an incredible achivement can be earned, which would severely increase its notability. I'm not denying it's popular; but it's merely an entertainment production, and as such, I don't think it's a major event. I never said the content had to be sports related; I'm saying it would be more notable if it was. And if the Halo 3 release date is there, I'm about to get rid of it. Erath 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no harm in you expressing your view on what makes and what doesn't make something notable. However, the only reason you have to remove the content is because of it not being a sport, which in your own Point of View takes away from its notability. So how can an event such as the 52nd Eurovision Song Contest or Microsoft releasing Windows Vista be notable enough for the section on Expected events yet at the same time not be a sport at all? -- bulletproof 3:16 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't my point... I'm trying to find the right words here. Of course non-sports can be notable; in fact, many of the sporting events were recently deemed not notable enough and shunted off to 2007 in sports. What I want to say is that its scripted nature ultimately detracts from its notability - that it's not a competition, and I think that scunners it on notability grounds. Erath 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one (or one of the ones) who has been shunting off many of the sporting events to the 2007 in sports article, but I certainly wouldn't move professional wrestling in the same way, as it never gets covered in the sporting sections of major newspapers so it's an entertainment, not a sport (and thus a consensus fact of the media, not my own POV). So wrestling should be compared to the other TV entertainment events, and judged by worldwide figures (and I mean a real one, which is the number who actually watch it, not the number who have a TV set in a country where one of the 200+ TV channels shows it). As for why not wrestling when Microsoft's Vista is in, well a simple matter of sales. Microsoft expect sales in the hundreds of millions over four years (reasonably - they dominate the OS market and there are over 600 million PCs worldwide). I'd be rather surprised if this Wrestlemania hit 10 million worldwide. It's about as important as a new episode of Spongebob Squarepants. Average Earthman 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And now someone's just tried to add Survivor Series. Is it as "big" as Wrestlemania? Are all the different "showcase" events like this? We sure aren't going to include them all! Erath 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Survivor Series is not as notable as WrestleMania 23 as it is not shown live to a world wide audience as WrestleMania is. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's a perfect metric. Given the expansion of TV channels, it is quite possible to show something to multiple nations that still fails to get a worldwide audience of anywhere near 10 million. Is the Superbowl irrelevent because 95% of the people watching are of one nationality? Or is it relevent because 90 million people are watching it? Personally, I feel we can make more use of the 2007 in television article. Average Earthman 09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I am as big a fan of wrestling as the next guy, but it really has no place here. I mean, this page is to display the highlights of the year, you will forgive me if i don't feel that Wrestlemania 23 is on that list. Now, I edited the page without seeing the talk page first, for that I stand corrected and admonished fairly. It just seems out of place here in my opinion, which is all I am giving of course. - Kaobear 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a week without comment now. Can we come to a decision, or do we have to resort to a straw poll? Erath 12:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The date can be deleted if it means that much to you. -- bulletproof 3:16 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No need to be hostile. I started a discussion, and it's reached its end... a conclusion has to be found sometime. If it "meant so much to me", I'd have already deleted it and kept reverting its addition. Instead I wanted to try and have a civilised discussion on it. Erath 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Not being hostile. I'm just literally saying if you really feel like the entry doesn't belong in the article then by all means go ahead and remove it. I hope you didn't get that the wrong way. -- bulletproof 3:16 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, I think the cricket world cup should be removed as well since cricket is a minor sport that isn't even a major sport. WrestleMania is more importent than it. TJ Spyke 02:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting verbatim from the Cricket article:

Now that's a large proportion of the world's population. How can it possibly be a minor sport? Erath 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

first of all brother WWE is the worlds richest and most popular wrestling company and it is to have set an attendance record hows that for minor? 244pupil6(im Eraths brother)11:12, 8 Febuary 2007.

Tony Blair's resignation

We've had some disagreement on this, so what's the best way to handle Tony Blair's announcement that he intends to step down before the 2007 Labour Conference? We've had some ideas before, off the top of the head they include:

  1. An entry for May 4 or May 31, media speculation of Blair's retirement date in The Sun etc.
  2. An entry for the Labour Party conference in September by which the new leader should be addressing the party
  3. An entry for "Unknown date" of the year for his resignation
  4. No entry whatsoever

Favourites? Erath 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Speculation should not be included on Year articles, as we only record actual events. The date he stepped down should be present, anything less than that should, if relevant, be on 2007 in politics and / or 2007 in the United Kingdom. Qzm (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The section on Gordon Brown stepping down is, as far as I can tell, a fiction? If not, perhaps it should be reworded to be clearer, or cited? 82.69.35.36 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of F1 2007

Sorry if this is a bit late, but I'm asking if the start of the 2007 Formula One season can be added to the list? This season is notable for the following reasons:

  • First time in 5 years a single tyre manufacturer has supplied the entire field.
  • First time in 16 years that Michael Schumacher hasn't entered the season
  • First time since 1986 that the Cosworth engines haven't been used by a single team
  • First time ever a black driver has entered Formula One (Lewis Hamilton).

Anyway, I'd prefer to hear your suggestions before I (possibly) put the F1 season back into this article.--Skully Collins Edits 07:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

These are interesting statistical points from a Formula One point of view, but none is a major international event. 2007 in sports is the article to include it in, in my opinion. Erath 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Then how come the Cricket World Cup is on this list? How is Cricket a "major sport"?--Skully Collins Edits 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You will find a comment at the end of the section titled "Inclusion of Wrestlemania 23" about cricket being a major sport. Erath 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Erath's recent edit summary says, 'Harry Potter does have a large popularity, but that doesn't make it an internationally notable event. It's not going to top news reels for days and days.'

I'm sorry, but every part of that statement is so at variance with reality I have to truly wonder why it was written. To cite only a few news articles from the launch of the previous book:

All found during a brief search. --CalendarWatcher 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a popular book. Doesn't my edit summary say that, or is that "completely at variance with reality" also? So is the Bible. On a relevant subject, so is, for instance, Guinness World Records (the the best-selling copyrighted book series in the world). Potter 7, as of now, has no release date and no information whatsoever on its content aside from its status as the series' finale. Its inclusion is nothing but crystall-ballism owing to the popularity of its predecessors, and in my mind, I don't think that's enough. If enough of the community think otherwise, then include it - but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Erath 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
'Yeah, it's a popular book. Doesn't my edit summary say that, or is that "completely at variance with reality" also? ' That was the only true portion of the entire summary, and I apologize for not mentioning it. The rest, however, was untrue (wildly so) and still remains untrue. Or did you fail to notice that? --CalendarWatcher 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your observation that my comments are all "untrue" is your opinion. Please don't ever mistake it for anything more than that. Erath 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your comments were so untethered from reality that calling them 'untrue' is appropriate. I notice you couldn't be bothered to address their validity directly, although I'll note that your recognition of the 'popularity of its predecessors' shows a certain contradiction. --CalendarWatcher 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to completely ignore the content of my messages then this is not a discussion, it is a slagging match, and I'm playing no further part in it. I'm inviting other people to share their opinion. Erath 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know, if they included the release of The Return of the King on the 2003-page in the beginning of 2003? If so, putting in Harry Potter may be justified.
I'm fairly sure that they included the release of Star Wars Episode III. That's something different than Harry Potter, though (in my opinion), as tbe Star Wars franchise has been a major part of pop culture for 30 years.
It's a question of importance, whether or not to include Harry Potter in the year-overview. In my opinion, it's not important enough to be included in that overview. I'd take out the upcoming release of Spider-Man 3, as well. By the way, does anyone know why Spider-Man 3 and The Simpsons Movie aren't sorted in by date like Harry Potter e.g.? Aren't the release dates confirmed yet?
Out of these movie release dates (HP, Spidey and Simpsons) I'd only include The Simpsons Movie in the 2007-overview. --Gazongagizmo 12:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second... You'd include Spiderman 3 over Harry Potter 7? Harry Potter has been the best-selling and most influential book series of the decade, crowding out the top three spots in the best-sellers list time after time, and we're not going to include the release date of its last book?? It is definitely of international significance and absolutely worthy of inclusion. Especially when the release date is announced. Grandmasterka 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Harry

It is certainly noteworthy that the final Harry Potter book and the fifth Harry Potter film are being released within a week and a day of each other. Anybody who does not think so must be hiding in a cave. The book and film take place, fictionally speaking, in the 1990's. It is not logical to put the book in "2007 in fiction" or the movie in "2007 in film." Erudil 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange headlines

There are some... interesting new headlines popping up in this article for 2007 recently. Does it qualify as vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.216.92.246 (talk)

Current year

Wikipedia uses UTC, so it is already 2007. --Kalmia 03:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

why UTC? Are you sure UTC is NPOV? why not US Eastern Standard/Daylight time? (after all, wikipedia's servers ARE in Tampa, Florida, right?) 68.36.214.143 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still 2006 in certain places, so it's a "future event" and "current event" at the same time!

Occurances noted in 'current events' (at the beginning of 2007), did occur at 'that place' when 'that place' already entered 2007. So UTC is NPOV. GoodDay 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anything happened so far this year?

Just wondering. :) 68.36.214.143 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU, with Slovenia adopting the euro anyway read the article, also it has only just started. AxG (talk) (sign here) 05:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in 2006 a I highly dought barely anything has happened in the one hour and twenty-two minutes the eastern standard time has even expirinced 2007. MastertagUSA 22:22 December 31, 2006 (UTC)

Policy for inclusion of events

What is the policy for inclusion of events listed on this page?

Are we going to list every presidential election? Are we listing every major sport event? Are we listing every international project? Are we listing everything that the IOC do? Are we listing everything the US think is relevant?

These and other important questions can be answered by reading through 2006 and Talk:2006, where many things like this have been debated ad nauseum. And we're not that US-centric. :-) Grandmasterka 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

July 7 - New 7 Wonders

It says that the new 7 wonders will be announced in Switzerland, but shouldn't it be Portugal? Lisbon is Portugal's capital. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.129.228.172 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

2006th year?

The intro sentence was changed to say that 2007 is the 2006th year of the Gregorian calendar. Is this correct? I would have thought that 2007th was correct.--GregRM 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just changed that to the 2,006th year of the anno Domini era, because "Gregorian calendar" is not correct, as the Julian calendar was used before the GC being instated circa the 1500s. But the 2,006th year of the AD calendar is correct, since there was no year zero—RunningAway 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
But, for instance, for year 1, it is not the "zeroth" year, but the first year. I am still confused.--GregRM 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for correcting the issue of A.D. vs. Gregorian calendar.--GregRM 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. But as for the 2,007th year issue, yes, you are right. I guess all that NY's Eve partying got to my brain ;) haha. I'll fix that now. — RunningAway 21:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Common year?

It states in the article page that 2007 is a common year it also said this about 2006 and 2005 in fact it's said the same about all the years if I renember rightly. In what way is Monday a common year for a year to start??

BCFC Blue 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Any year that is not a leap year is a common year. 2004 and 2000 are leap years.. — RunningAway 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the page '2006,' someone vandalized in the third line of the article. :( Billybobjoebobjoe 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC) BBJBJ

The heat

I'm Sure That Every Major News Company Has mentioned That 2007 Promises To Be The Hottest Year In Recorded History. I Think That That Is A Relevent Fact That Should Be Posted. I Am Unsure How To Properly Edit A Wiki But I am Hoping Someone Will Add This To The Artical. Aeonz... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.87.57 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Um, no. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It might happen, but it hasn't yet, and it's not certain that it will. Susan Davis 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
2007: The year with two winters! With sudden snowfall in many parts of the world in February.--59.93.212.162 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation and predictions should not be on encyclopedia articles. Qzm (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Year of the Pig

Why are we discussing the year of the Pig here? China now uses the Gregorian calendar. The old Twelve Animals calendar now has no functional usage, and is confined to astrology. There is no reason to mention it in this article on the Gregorian year. — coelacan talk — 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So if nobody has any objections I'm going to take this out soon. — coelacan talk — 04:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese government uses the Gregorian calendar, but interest in the Chinese zodiacal year is widespread, and other year pages have cited it. It's a small thing, and its inclusion isn't harming anything; please leave it in. Susan Davis 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's a good thing to have in, it helps define the year. Like 2007 being an International Polar Year; it's not a thing that people are going to change their behaviour over, but it adds some sort of character. Kripto 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at what page this is. 2007, in the Gregorian calendar. The Chinese calendar is completely unrelated to this. There is no reason to mention it here. If we keep this, then by the same reasoning we need to also include on this page the dates in the Bahá'í calendar, Bengali calendar, Buddhist calendar, Ethiopian calendar, Hebrew calendar, Iranian calendar, Islamic calendar, Japanese calendar, Javanese calendar, Kurdish calendar, Malayalam calendar, Nepali calendar, Thai calendar(s), Tibetan calendar, and Zoroastrian calendar, all of which are in use today, and probably many more that I'm overlooking. There's no reason to be preferencing the Chinese calendar over these other calendars if we're going to include anything non-Gregorian here. But why include any? The Chinese Year of the Pig has absolutely nothing to do with the Gregorian year 2007! The current Year of the Pig corresponds to 18 February 2007 through 6 February 2008. There is no relationship. The Gregorian year 2007 is an International Polar Year. That's related, because that's the year that was designated such. The Year of the Pig wasn't designated International Polar Year. Let's keep this page about the Gregorian calendar, since it's about a Gregorian year. Otherwise, we're unfairly discriminating against all the people who use those other calendars. — coelacan talk — 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be written that the Year of the Dog ends and the Year of the Pig starts on the Chinese calendar. It is something notable that happens during this year. It's rather futile trying to include everyone in everything, e.g. Ethnologue lists over 7000 main languages, is it bias for companies to only translate movies into ten languages? How many should they translate it into? 7000? There's still several thousand more languages which are slightly different, they need to be included too, it would take them years, but at least they're including everyone.
I just think some people do find it significant what Chinese year it is and they do celebrate it, despite what calender they use. I've grown up in a Westernized country, so I might be bias toward this but I've never heard of anyone ever celebrating the Bahá'í New Year, only Gregorian and Chinese, although some of those calendars line up with the Gregorian one, so that may be why.
It doesn't really matter *that* much though, I'm just saying that it could be significant. I think someone visiting the page will not say "Ahh! This is irrelevant to me because I don't use that" Bobmasedo 12:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant; it belongs in the article. I just don't think it belongs in the intro, since per WP:LEAD the intro is supposed to be about the content of the article. This is an article about a Gregorian year. The Chinese year is simply not congruent to that. I note that under the February section, there is a note that says:
I think that's appropriate. Since the information is already there, there's nothing to be lost by taking it out of the intro. Now, since you live in a Western nation, you've surely heard of people celebrating Rosh Hashanah. If we're going to include the Chinese New Year, we might as well go on about how most of Gregorian year 2007 is in Jewish year 5767, but sometime in September it will switch over to 5768. But this is not "Western Wikipedia". We try to eliminate our systemic bias here. So we ought to include Islamic New Year, and mention that part of January is in the year 1427 but the rest of the year is in the year 1428. Now give a good reason not to do the Hindu year as well. Lots of people celebrate it. If the Chinese New Year is in the intro, all these should be in the intro, at the very least. — coelacan — 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only notable to China, not to other countries; therefore, such info belongs on articles such as 2007 in China, not here. Qzm (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Section headings – 'Deaths'

There seems to be a problem with the 'Deaths' section heading not appearing (at least on my display) – anyone know why or can fix it? -- MightyWarrior 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Federal Election

An item was listed speculating about the possibility of a federal election in Canada. While it's a strong possibility, it's far from certain, and will depend to a large extent on what the NDP does. Their poll numbers are currently down, which gives them an incentive to not bring down the government, although they're ideologically sufficiently far from the Conservatives that it's still a possibility. But it's not certain enough to list as a fact; see WP:NOT#CBALL. Susan Davis 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AD (or CE) era

CE stands for "Christian" or "Common Era," so the "era" after all this is redundant. Common Era era. I'm not sure how to right it, but for the sake of grammatic accuracy someone should reword.

Reworded. -- Sarcha 45 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar storm

There's a solar storm comin'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.155.95 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

True but we don't know if the big one will definitely be this year. T.roome 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mattism?

WTF? What is Mattism? Sounds like blatant vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.45.81.132 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

2007 Events By place...

I notice the regionalized articles in the right panel. Example: 2007 in Argentina, in United Kingdom, etc. Is there a page for US 2007 news only? I've looked all over and could not find an entry.

PS3

I don't see any other console mentioned, why mention the PS3 release? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.224.40 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

There are no other consoles scheduled for release in 2007(That I know of) Bobmasedo 11:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

March 8 - Israeli Prime Minister accepts that they had planned the attack on Lebanon months before Hizbullah captured Israeli Soldiers.

March 8 - Israeli Prime Minister accepts that they had planned the attack on Lebanon months before Hizbullah captured Israeli Soldiers. Is there any reference for this? 80.42.66.146 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the usage of the word "accepts". Perhaps what was meant was "admits"? "Accepts" makes me think someone else told him, and he decides not to argue. I'm not changing it because I don't have any references for this. --Insane 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think 'accepts' is usually used by as 'admits' sounds worse... Anyway, here's the reference for the entry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6431637.stm Easy skankin' 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bob Barker's retirement

Now, if you don't put this, (a TV legend retiring after 20+ years) then I don't know what. 72.38.234.177 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Barker retirement, COME ON DOWN. GoodDay 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that a major world event? Qzm (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

Maybe I've missed something in Talk pages for other years, but shouldn't every fact in this article have a reference? Mind-bogglingly difficult task to do it now, I accept, but shouldn't it be a policy to require new additions to have references if they're to be kept.

Some facts have links to articles that reference the fact, yes, but not all and those articles may change with time anyway such that suitable references are lost entirely. GDallimore (Talk) 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik I

On October 4, 1957, Sputnik I was launched into space. It was the first artificial satellite to be launched there. On October 4, 2007 it is the 50th anniversary of when that happened. Shouldn't we include that for Predicted Events? Because it's true that on October 4, 1957 Sputnik I was launched into space. 68.126.152.67, 22:55 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is some type of ceremony or event planned to commemorate the anniversary. Kaiser matias 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Header about video games

I removed this from the top of the page:

While I do agree with this, it's not suitable for inclusion itself, so I am placing it here. Warnings about edits shouldn't be placed in the article themselves, they should be placed on the talk page. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The above information on what is appropriate is commented out so that only editors (not readers) see the warning. It is appropriate and has been been a longstanding instruction. I am returning it. — ERcheck (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Change Home video to DVD

Instead of having 2007 in Home Video, why don't we change it to 2007 in DVD? Video has been extinct for a few years now, so no new releases are in video, just DVD. I also think it should be changed for the years since video has been extinct also. This is the 21st century right?

Why remove off-year US elections?

Surely the fact that 5 US states are having elections in November (including the first post-Katrina elections in LA and MS) is at least as important an upcoming event as parliamentary elections in Newfoundland and Labrador. Lordsutch 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, restore them. GoodDay 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pay-per-view wrestling

"July 1 — Professional Wrestling Company Ring of Honor will televise their first ever Pay-Per-View in the United States, entitled Respect is Earned."

This is not a world event. I guess it can be removed after the company that put it up there milks it for all its worth.

Rebuild of Evangelion

I just noticed that my entry, the September 1st release of the first part of the Rebuild of Evangelion in Japanese theaters, was removed. People are including wrestling, other movie dates, and even video game releases in this article. I know that this isn't a "world event", but Neon Genesis Evangelion is considered the most successful anime series in history. (And, please note: I am not associated with the movie in any way, other than the fact that I am an Eva fan. I'm just including this in the article to let others know about this series.) Plus, there is an article about it here on Wikipedia, so why not?--Freespirit1981 22:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put this entry back in ,along with a link to the Wiki article about the movie series.--Freespirit1981 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image box to point out most important events

Since the image box was removed I add it here to allow discussion. --Abe Lincoln 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the top as it moved the year box down, but unfortunatly I wrote in my edit summery "Rm big and bulky at top, maybe done the page" which was a mastake I made and should have said "Rm big and bulky at top, maybe down the page would be better" AxG @ ►talk 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
2007

At the 33rd G8 summit in Heiligendamm in Germany the future of the globe is discussed, protected with unseen security measures against anti-globalization protesters and possible terrorist attacks
File:Tony Blair with Romano Prodi at G8, cropped to Blair.jpg
Due to rising opposition in his own party, Tony Blair announces he will resign as British Prime Minister after 10 years
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy wins the presidential election against Ségolène Royal by a close vote and a very high turnout

Add iPhone shipping June 29th

Apple released some iPhone Commercials that end with the "June 29th" date. http://www.apple.com/iphone/ads/

That was not an important world event. Qzm (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 date wrong

The listing under December for Halo 3 being released is wrong. Halo 3 is going to be released September 25th.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by C0ldc0d3r (talk • contribs).

Well spotted. Verified and fixed. --TeaDrinker 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is the Halo 3 release date important enough to be on this list? For some reason, individual video game release dates don't seem notable enough to make a list like this one. And for the record, I'm a 24-year-old video gamer, I've played the Halo games, and I'm just as interested in them as the next fan. But from an encyclopedic standpoint... it just doesn't makes sense to me to have it on this list. Otherwise, why not have all video game release dates on this list? I dunno. Comments? JGerretse 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Halo 3 release date important enough to be on this list? - It's not. There's a big ol' piece of hidden text ("DO NOT ADD THE RELEASE DATE FOR HALO 3") that keeps getting ignored, necessitating the constant removel of that bit. --Calton | Talk 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Halo 3 release date important enough to be on this list? - Why is some boring legislative meeting important enough to be on this list? Why is some random rugby tournament important enough to be on the list? That's what I ask myself when I looked at all the items on this list and it makes no sense. To say that Halo 3 is less a part of our society than these events is just plain ignorant. No one can deny the effect of Halo 3, through advertisement and anticipation, and people identify with Halo 3 more than they do with half the things on this list. It's downright repression. --76.226.3.215 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, nobody is forcing you to read the article. If you want a list of video game release dates, they're here. There are more specific articles for more specific events such as 2007 in sports, 2007 in film, 2007 in music, and 2007 in video gaming. This article is for more general, yet notable, events. Useight 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And once again, what doesn't make Halo 3 a general, yet notable, event? It's on the television. It's at the 7-11. It's on the Mountain Dew. It's in the stores. It's what everyone is talking about. Once again, to deny that it is a notable event is just plain ignorant. --76.226.3.215 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.3.215 (talk)
It's on Mountain Dew and in 7-Eleven because the marketing people put it there. It has nothing to do with it being significant. More people identify with Halo 3 than half the things on this list? Did you take a survey? Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I forgot that you are God and therefore omniscient. -- 12.116.162.162 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my comment. -- 12.116.162.162 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How to pronounce numbers?

I apologize for creating a seperate heading in the discussion area for this. In the wording under the main title article it states, " The year is usually pronounced as "two thousand and seven", ". I believe this is improper English (I natively speak American). It should be pronounced "two thousand seven". Can any English experts chime in on the matter? If not, then I suggest rewording it or removing the entire sentence. Why is it necessary to include a pronunciation of numbers? Handment 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe "two thousand seven" is appropriate American English, but the British allow the use of an "and," as in "two thousand and seven." See Names of numbers in English. Perhaps clarification in this article would be a good idea. --TeaDrinker 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, speakers of both British and Commonwelath English generally use the "and" in the pronunciation of such numbers. As far as I (and a few other people I have consulted on the matter) am aware, the exclusion of the "and" is a purely American trait. Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page though, rather than just editing the page - this helps us avoid systemic bias issues.
Jb17kx 07:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Magic Game Day?

I wanted to ask this here first so I don't make an idiot out of myself, but, do you think it should be included that on July 14th there will be a Worldwide Magic: the Gathering game day? Info here Forgotten hope 01:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That was not a historically notable event. Qzm (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

American Pie Beta House

because this movie is rumored to be a 2007 film in preproduction shouldn't it be on this page

No. It would belong on 2007 in film...except that it's a rumor, and rumors don't belong here. --OnoremDil 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, rumors and speculation don't have a place here, except for this. Useight 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Adoptions" section

There's only two listed and I'm sure there have been more than two children adopted so far this year. No other article has a section for adoptions. I think it should be done away with, or at least, changed to read "Celebrity Adoptions." I'm making the latter change now but I still think the section should be deleted. It's not notable and very incomplete.  – AMK1211talk! 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Given he murdered his wife & child, why is his death only allowed on the deaths page ? And why is the term 'child killer' not allowed next to his name? All are proven facts according to the GA police.

No personal attacks - comment on content, not contributors. Neutral point of view - 'child killer' sounds biased; we are here to maintain an objective record of events, not a personal slant on them. ck lostsword•T•C 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
His wife is not notable enough to be on this article, though is notable enough for 2007 in sports and 2007 in the United States. Their child is not notable. Shouldn't the entry be professional wrestler and murderer, seeing as he is very well-known for the double murder he committed? Qzm (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd millenium started on January 1st 2000!

LOL. I have been hearing lately that US kids are not good at maths. But this is way serious. The second millenium ended at 31st December 1999. The 3rd started at 1st January 2000.

Do the math. Everydaypanos 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, no need for personal attacks. Please note that there was no year 0, so the first millenium was 1 - 1000, the second was 1001 - 2000, and the third is 2001 - 3000. Useight 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing

At Ongoing it was written that the War in Iraq exceeds length of World War II. This is incorrect. WWII (1939 - 1945) 6 years . Iraq war (2003 - 2007) 4 years. I will remove that

Births

I changed Princess Haalah's birthdate to April 7 becaus when the article was created it had that birthdate and someone keeps changing it to th incorrect one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.205.205 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because that was the date indicated when the article was first created doesn't mean that it is the correct date. I added a reference which indicated a different birthdate. You also changed the date for Boxing Day, which is plainly false. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Dancter 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

World-affecting events?

Some of the major events listed in this article are questionable at best. The release of the Simpsons Movie, anybody? I think we really need to think of the purpose of these events. Are they world effecting? The recent London bombings and the release of the new Harry Potter are world effecting events because they are big news all over the world.

My rule of thumb is, if it isn't the top story on CNN at some time, then it doesn't belong here. Somebody needs to look at every event in this article, and decide whether it fits. Flap Jackson 03:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose a much stricter criterion: only events that affect the world, as your title suggests. Therefore all sports- and entertainment-related events should be scrapped. This page is inherently POV, but surely we can do better than this. Harry Potter, anybody? Just because something makes it in the news (which the Simpsons movie incidentally has) it doesn't necessarily mean that it affects the world.
Also, using the CNN as a criterion for inclusion (as opposed to a heterogeneous basket of world news sources) means systemic bias. 83.67.217.254 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

UK floods

How would floods affecting the UK in June and July be added? 147.197.215.15 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They should not be added to this article at all. They are a UK-only event, and hence should be on 2007 in the United Kingdom. Qzm (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Births

I put more princes and princesses in the births section. I got them from Netty's News Page. Is it Posible that you can create articles for them, Please?68.160.229.30 00:49 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Death descriptions

Yesterday I deleted the 15 or so links which were on the descriptions of the deceased. I also added former Croatian prime minister Ivica Račan to the deaths and also deleted skateboarder Shane Cross who has no Wikipedia entry. Despite these important edits, a registered user named Calton reverted all of my work without explanation. I understand putting back up the links in the descriptions because that's a legit issue, but without offering any reason whatsoever for the reversion and also consequently deleting the listing of a leader of a nation and putting up a skateboarder with no Wikipedia entry is completely ridiculous. Back to the issue here, why should only a few deceased people have links in their descriptions while the vast majority have a short and sweet, link-less, description? Shouldn't the focus be placed on the person and his or her life instead of the description of the job? Let's take for example as it currently stands this is a deceased person who currently has a link in their description.....

March 15 - Bowie Kuhn, Major League Baseball Commissioner (b. 1926)

With the link in the description the reader is just as likely to begin reading about MLB commissioner when the whole point of the deaths section is to focus on those who've passed. That's one argument in favor of deleting the links.... but the strongest one is UNIFORMITY. 95% of the deceased read like this...

March 16 - Manjural Islam, Bangladeshi cricketer (b. 1984)

There's no link to the sport of cricket there. Why should Bowie Kuhn get a link to his profession while Manjural Islam and almost everyone else have no links in their descriptions? --Tocino 20:04 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Two thousand seven

In the UK, 2007 is usually pronounced, "two thousand and seven" and occasionally "twenty oh-seven", but I have never heard it pronounced, "two thousand seven". Is that common in the USA? If so, I wonder whether this difference between USA and UK usages should be mentioned. Incidentally, it would be interesting if readers in other English speaking countries would tell us their usage.Solentsider 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "two thousand seven" is popular in America. I haven't heard any one say, "twenty oh-seven", though. --Tocino 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Images on year articles

Tell me something: why do year articles have only US and shuttle-related photos in it?? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also a photo of Greece. So, only 75% of the photos are US and shuttle-related (unless you consider the photo of Greece shuttle-related since it was taken by a satellite). I don't know who decided on these particular images, however they could be easily changed if the consensus decides to do so. Useight 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ramadan - 12th September - Events

Added Ramadan in the events section under September. If there is anything wrong with this feel free to edit. Ismael 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ipods

Where was the ipod made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.183.123 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use the help desk for questions such as this instead of using this page as a forum. However, to answer your question, see Ipod. Useight 02:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on September 25

I would like to ask some of you to voice your opinion on weather or not the Halo 3 release should be included on the Calender. Any anon IP's or registered users input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! 68.143.88.2 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my opinion to include per our discussion. -- 12.116.162.162 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not include in the 2007 calendar. It's really not that significant. -- ArglebargleIV 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, :) I would argue that it's more significant in the 2007 article than the September 25th one. But my opinion is still include. -- 12.116.162.162 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I say no, the Halo 3 release belongs in 2007 in video gaming. Useight 21:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It was not of historical significance, so should not be on this article or on any Day of year article. Qzm (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding Halo 3

Halo 3 is more notable now than almost any other event on that list. No other single piece of media (including Motion pictures, TV series, music, books, etc) has generated anywhere near $170,000,000.00 in 24 hours. My economy class at Missouri State University is doing a case study on it. To put in into contrast, Spider Man 3 was the highest revenue generating movie of all time at $59 Million in one day. Halo did $170 Million. This is more dollars than the GDP of the lowest 13 countries. in the CIA world fact book. 68.143.88.2 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It belongs in 2007 in video gaming because it's a much anticipated game release with tons of media exposure. It also belong here, in 2007 because of it's revenue generating world history title, just like it belongs in September 25 for the same reason. It has consensus (4 to 1) for inclusion in both September 25 and here in 2007 (see talk page of September 25). 68.143.88.2 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The consensus may have been to include it in September 25, but the consensus here is to exclude it from 2007. After briefly reviewing the September 25's talk page, I'm not so sure there's even consensus there. The only people who want it in are a couple of IP addresses and they are being opposed by established accounts. And one of the IP addresses is yours. Useight 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...maybe you should continue to read that page. Every established user eventually decided in favor (once there was verifiable sources) to included. Should I quote each vote and by who? 68.143.88.2 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I would've read the entire page but I had a class to attend. Please refrain from sounding bitey. The consensus on September 25 applies to that article only, if you'd like to have a !vote for consensus here, feel free to initiate one. But I believe most regulars on this talk page will oppose. Useight 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose. 70.134.49.164 02:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on your few other contributions, you're obviously 68.143.88.2...and it looks like you've decided to troll on 2 IP's now. WP:AGF only goes so far, and your recent contributions are pushing the limits of it IMO. --Onorem♠Dil 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said only "regulars" get a say? I think it should be included here... It's quite possibly the biggest video game release in over twenty years, and it's of international interest. Grandmasterka 05:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, and it's actually not only the biggest video game release ever, but the largest revenue grossing media event in history (including movies, books, music, etc). Oh, and BTW Onorem, no I'm not the other IP. Ever hear of "nslookup" or"whois"? Try using them, it's not even the same ISP or location. 70.134.49.164 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. It does appear I was mistaken. I somehow missed that this edit was only replacing the comment left by the other IP. My apologies for the accusation. (although whois does put both in the same city) --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
After seeing the edits you made to User:FisherQueen, I don't care if you're the same person or not. You both appear to have the exact same agenda. Get Halo 3 mentioned and troll with that obnoxious image. --Onorem♠Dil 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
While I definitely agree that IP addresses get a say in the matter, just like usernames. However it does seem that the consensus here has generally been to exclude the Halo 3 launch. Now that it grossed $170 million, perhaps the consensus will change. Useight 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

July 4 event

What does this mean: "July 4 - The 50-star U.S. flag replaces the 48-star flag, which flew from 1912 to 1959, as the longest-flying American flag"? Seems we once had a jester. --Brand спойт 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that the version of the U.S. flag with 50 stars has been the official flag longer than the 48-star version was the official flag (which was 1912 to 1959). Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union in 1959 and that was when the 50 star version began. The 48 star version flew for 47 years and the 50 star version has now flown for 48 years. Useight 05:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 release

The Halo 3 release has been added again to the page. I don't want to keep removing it if the consensus is to keep it there. Personally, I don't think a video game release is notable enough for this page, but belongs in 2007 in video gaming. The last discussion on this top was really convoluted and got off on tangents and I don't think there was any real consensus on the matter. And that wasn't the first time the topic has been discussed. Let's try for a real consensus this time. Useight 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep

  1. The largest video game release in twenty years, and a focus of international interest. Video gaming is a big deal; if something of this magnitude happens in a major division of the entertainment industry, it should be included here. Grandmasterka 03:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. I think it is notable. Please understand; this has nothing to do with being a game, movie, music, etc. It is simply notable as, by far, the largest revenue event in entertainment history. If it was a movie or a book, I would feel the same way. It's not just simply "a successful video game release", but notable because it's a milestone in the entertainment industry. 68.143.88.2 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • additional comment Furthermore, Video gaming has become a huge subculture in the United States and many other developed countries around the world; and it's only going to grow as generation Y develops and has children brought up into a digital environment. Having this listed in 2007 as a tipping/starting point to where video games out-gross movies in revenue (this rarely ever happens--and has only happened with Halo) is valuable to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a testament to all human knowledge, including history, and anything industry changing, globally eventful, and undeniably a trend toward human behavior should be included in it's respectable time-frame (in this case, 2007 article). 68.143.88.2 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the above statement that video games is becoming a huge market. However, I don't believe Wikipedia is a repository for all the minutia of human knowledge. Between me and my brother we have an NES, SNES, N64, Wii, Xbox, and Xbox 360, so I play just as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure about putting this release in here. On the other hand, I noticed that in 1985 it list the U.S. NES launch, the Windows 1.0 release, and the original Tetris release. Perhaps the standards are stricter for more recent years? I may change have to change my mind on this one. Useight 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You bring up a good point; you're witnessing the evolution of electronic entertainment starting from is humble progressions in 1985. With Wikipedia and these lists of eventful accounts on each year, a person could systematically follow the course of such evolution in a useful, notable display of chronological significance. Lets keep this trend going; it's the right direction for any encyclopedia. 70.245.187.178 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Keeping Halo 3's release date (and subsequent record breaking sales) in the 2007 page rather than just the 2007 in video gaming page is key in my mind. Even though the release is most specifically categorized into gaming, every other item on this page can be categorized into another topic, whether it be sports, politics, religion, etc. Even before it's release I kept arguing for Halo 3 as an expected event this year simply because no one could ignore the fact that it made a huge impact on our culture even before September 25; starting with the completion of Halo 2, continuing with the ARG Iris, and finally climaxing with the release of Halo 3 itself. Everyone I talk to, gamer and non-gamer alike, know what Halo is by now and the sales figures only go to prove how much that is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.28.172 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove

  1. I don't think the release is notable enough, regardless of it grossing $170 million within 24 hours of launch. Useight 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Video games shouldn't be listed. Movie releases aren't listed, neither are new CD's, or broadway plays, etc. Ohh and I play video games on the PC and Playstation 2 (soon to be PS3). --Tocino 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

British individuals

I'm not disputing things here (or at the other related articles) just commenting. It's sad to see that it's been decided at Wikipedia, that we should go with English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish instead of British. I see the other countries sticking with Canadian, American, Mexican, Pakistani etc, yet the United Kingdom has been made the exception. Excuse me, the sorta-United Kingdom. GoodDay 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed 83.67.217.254 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is it sad? The Scottish National Party are in power and also have high approval ratings. Polls show Scots feel more Scottish than British. Northern Ireland has a very large Republican population. There's also a separtist movement in Wales that receives significant support. Also in England, some members of the Tory Party, who see an escape from the minority for the first time in a blue moon, are beginning to support indepedence for England. Most importantly it is more user-friendly to describe what nation they are from instead of what union they belong to. Saying they're "Scottish" is much more descriptive than saying they're "British". --Tocino 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's still sad. It's the United Kingdom, not the sorta United Kingdom. GoodDay 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why it's "sad" to label an English person, English. --Tocino 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Cause he/she is British first, as are Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not independant countries, they're a part of an independant country United Kingdom. GoodDay 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine?

Surely the abduction of Madeleine McCann is one of the year's biggest events. Shouln't her disappearance be noted on May 4th? Jordan5001 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It belongs on a list of missing persons. Millions of people around the world go missing each year and they aren't listed on here. Madeleine McCann gets no special treatment. --Tocino 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the events surrounding her were quite big and quite known in most of Europe compared to other missing people of little media coverage, so therefore she should get an mention on this page. Pro66 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it has been a really big news item, and much more important than "death of xxx yyy, US sports presenter"! Mike0001 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, kept it, halfway because I agree that it is a "major coverage" item. Removed the fluff words (PLEASE avoid words like "huge", try instead "extensive" or "considerable". Now all we need is a source citation, and viola! Edit Centric (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Tocino on this issue. The disproportionate news coverage of the Madeleine McCann disappearance is not unlike that for Paris Hilton, etc. The news coverage seems to feed on itself, rather than on the story behind the news. If Madeleine hadn't been such a pretty little girl (by white standards, and FYI, I'm white), and hadn't had physicians for parents, we would never have even heard of her. Imagine a black girl of average beauty, disappearing from poor- or middle-class black parents while vacationing. Any news coverage at all? Exactly zero. To me, the fact that there has been so much news coverage of Madeleine is, in and of itself, newsworthy. And that's the only reason this item merits any mention on this page, IMHO. Personally, I would favor this item's deletion, but I can certainly live with the consensus of others wanting to keep it in. Art Smart (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Festivus?

I recently undid an edit contributed by an IP address adding festivus to the list of holidays. At first I considered this to be a simple case of vandalism, but after thinking it over I now have to ask, what constitutes a holiday? I know festivus was brought to the public eye primarily by an episode of Seinfeld, but it does have a history rooted in ancient Roman practices and is celebrated today to some extent. -TheCrimsonANTHROPOLOGIST 20:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto photo location

Please DO NOT move this picture. The REASON that it is where it is, is because this was an assassination, and therefore is a news event, which bumps the picture WAY up on the priority list, especially given the current political and social climate in that nation. Edit Centric (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - penis won't go away

Hi there

I can't get the picture of the Penis to go away. I can't find any edits which added this and I can't find anything in the source code.Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

- Nevermind; it's gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save-Me-Oprah (talk • contribs) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tracking note

One of the smaller things that I have taken to doing is inserting tracking notes in articles where the last edit was performed by an IP editor, especially in articles where over 90 percent of past vandalism has been perpetrated by IP vandals. This in NO WAY implies that all IP edits are vandalism, on the contrary, I also try to personally thank IP editors that make positive contributions, on their associated talk page. This tracking is simply a wakka-enclosed comment, with the "checked ok" appearing in the edit summary, so that other editors watching the article for vandals will know that the last IP edit has been reviewed. Edit Centric (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Holidays

I'd like to purge this section of most of the dates since they are redundant. I can see merit in having religious holidays that change every year (Easter) (see 2008 article as being useful)--Omnieiunium (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

October 19th

I added text to the date 10/19/08 saying the DJI closed above 14,000 points before because it is the very first time it climbed above 14,00 points. Kylee20051 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But why is this more important than, say, the first time it closed above 13,278 points? 14,000 might be an easier number to remember, but that doesn't mean it corresponded with a notable event. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it does because that is the first time in US History the DJI Closed above 14,00 points. Im pretty sure that's important. 70.90.174.173 (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If something notable occurred, then you're welcome to provide a reference. And that doesn't answer my first question: Why is this more important than the first time it closed above any other random number? 14,000 is not automatically notable just because it's nice and pretty with three 0's. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Emergency in Bangladesh?

I don't really consider that notable. I mean, when has there not been an emergency in Bangladesh? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007/Archive_1&oldid=1092076158"