Talk:2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 9 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Olympcics Reference

Reference made to 2012 London Olympics removed because they will be taking place in 2012, not 2010. Replaced by Vancouver 2010 Olympics, also pronounced "twenty-ten," occurring in the discussed year.

-Jackmont, Dec 10, 2006.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.13.41 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dawn Mission

I've removed the reference to NASA's Dawn space probe because it is not now due to arrive until October 2011

[edit] 2010 novel and film

Should there be a link here to an article on the novel/film 2010?

--Dante Alighieri 08:50 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yep. Just like with 1984 and 2001. --mav

Conjunction between Jupiter and Uranus, Jupiter 28' south. First conjunction of triple conjunction Jupiter/Uranus. Am I the only one that finds this sentence a bit... awkward?--ShadowMagus 07:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There will be no presidential election in 2010. That statement must be corrected.

I put Poverty Elimination because it's since 1988 that I'm working for poverty elimination in 2010 and I believe that we'll eliminate poverty by 2010. Thank you. Why did you remove? Please, thank you.

Quoting : There will be no presidential election in 2010. That statement must be corrected.

There will be the Philippine Presidential elections. Next time, consider all countries.

[edit] decades

The article states that in 2010 the new decade will begin. This is wrong, since the decade officially begins in 2011.

  • Sigh* The second decade of the 21st Century begins in 2010. Though the 21st Century technically beging in 2001, it is generally accepted that 2000 be the first year of that decade. When folk refer to the 1980s, they don't mean 1981–1990, they refer to 1980–1989. 24.222.79.90 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

There WAS a 0 year (how could there be no 0 if it is a number?)—This unsigned comment was added by Pronoun (talk • contribs) .

Numbers have nothing to do with it. 1 BCE was followed by 1 CE; there was no Year 0.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that guy who said 1990-1999, because 1990 isn't part of the 80s. It was part of the 90s. It has to belong somewhere.... the year has to belong somewhere, but it could not have been part of the 80s as it wasn't numerically. I'm old, I should know this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.243.215 (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that guy who said 1990-1999, because 1990 isn't part of the 80s. It was part of the 90s. It has to belong somewhere.... the year has to belong somewhere, but it could not have been part of the 80s as it wasn't numerically. I'm old, I should know this stuff. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium of Human Flight

The following removed:

In 2010 there will be celebrations of the thousandth anniversary of the first historically recorded attempt at human flight. In 1010 Elmer of Malmesbury, a monk, launched himself with parchment wings from an 18-meter tower and glided for some 200 meters before crash-landing and breaking his legs.

The statement about the "first recorded" is false, see Abbas Ibn Firnas. mikka (t) 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 FIFA World Cup

In a web page "2010 Cup Coza|Welcoming the 2010 World Cup to South Africa" appears a countdown to the openning day. According this countdown the date of the first match of the event that will be the nineteenth edition of the event will be June 11, 2010. [[1]] 06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional 2010 "what-if"s

Are these really appropriate? The following is listed: If it is still in production, the drama series Law & Order will match the record set by Gunsmoke as the longest-running American prime time dramatic series (20 years). Where does the line get drawn? Oldest living people? Most units sold for a video game? I recommend removing the current hypothetical because there are too many arbitrary things that fit the pattern: If X is still Y in 2010, it will match/beat record Z. --Ds13 00:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --Ds13 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation section

Wow, that section is currently an uncited and weasel-worded extravaganza! Let me give some examples:

  • "A perhaps minute dilemma..." (POV?)
  • "Some, feeling comfortable ... will prefer..." (weasel words)
  • "Others are likely to..." (weasel words)
  • "Influence on the current pronunciation ... may have been influenced by..." (weasel words, speculation)
  • "some feel this may influence the general public" (weasel words)
  • "Those opposed ... argue that..." (who? uncited.)
  • "Most, however, agree that..." (who? uncited.)

Is this original research? Since this needs to be encyclopedic, I suggest the contributor(s) of that section rewrite it. I'll help, but I don't personally think very much can be said here about this topic unless previous published articles on it can be cited. --Ds13 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit I rushed the publication of that section and would not have a problem with it being removed altogether, I realize there are no sources. The only sources I could possibly give would be internet forums or personal blogs online by various persons. If this is not sufficiant then I understand the section should be removed. I would appreciate that this issue be covered, however, since it certainly is something that will occur in 2010. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the pronunciation is important and interesting also. And it's not something that will occur in the future; it's already happening right now — we refer to the year "2010" all the time in news and business. Since blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources, reducing this section to a list of variants would remain factual and we don't need to speculate on consensus or introduce any opinions on which one might "win", etc. --Ds13 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll try some rewording, and you can assist of you like. Also, just wondering, did you intentionally post your response at "20:10, 3 May 2006"? I found that quite a coincidence. Anyway, cheers. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odyssey series

I removed the final sentence from the entry about the Clarke's Odyssey series, because it's seemed unrelated, and it spoiled the ending anyway. (I know spoilers are not reason enough to remove content, but it still seemed irrelevant). I also think the majority of the rest of that entry is pretty irrelevant. I'd like to see it as simply "The (book) by (author) and (movie) by (director) take place in this year." or something similar. Any objections to this? B.Mearns*, KSC 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the same note, I'm changing this bit:
Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2010: Odyssey Two (1984), filmed in the same year as 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is set in 2010.
First off, a novel is written, not filmed. And second, according to it's Wikipedia entry, the novel was published in 1982, not 1984. MyrddinEmrys 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ten in 2010"

Should there be any mention of the Bad Religion song "Ten in 2010" that is about the projected 10 billion people on Earth in 2010?Andrew zot 05:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vagueness? ...

Uh, I found two things I'm unsure of in the article.

1. "The Space Shuttle will retire."

What does that mean ...? It just says "space shuttle will retire," it doesn't say what it means, and thus confuses the living hell out of me. Are they saying a new method of travel from Earth to space is being developed, or do they mean some trivial thing that I don't know about? Could someone clear this up . . . ?

2. "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope may be deorbited by 2010."

Why? Are there plans for some new telescope, or have Scientists decided they've gotten bored of studying planets ...? If the article on "Space Shuttle," and "Hubble Space Telescope," expand on this, excuse me. But shouldn't it also expand on them -in the article-?

I'm just confused. =\ 12.107.247.126 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bicentennials

many countries in latin america will have bicentennial in 2010 it should be mentioned.--201.9.24.233 21:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New, encyclopedic & cited "pronunciation" section

I have added a new (rather lengthy) section on the pronunciation issues with 21st century years to this article, and would appreciate comments on it here. Any fixes you feel are needed, feel free to change them in the article. But please, do join me in conversation here prior to fully reverting. Thank you for co-operation. -- Sarcha 45 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an interesting decision to put it at the top. I actually went right to the bottom of the page just now to check something, because sections like this always wind up at the bottom of the page. Since it's the most interesting part of the article and most unique to the year 2010, I agree it belongs at the top.
At any rate, since there have been no responses here after all this time I just wanted to say I think the section is excellent. A considerable amount of information that could have been dull or seemed pointless, and you actually made it kind of fun.
Has anything serious been written of the fact that, in conversation, when we attach a word to the end of "twenty-" it's almost always the second digit? When I think of "twenty-eleven," for a brief moment eleven becomes the compressed second digit of a two digit number. For this reason I wonder if it might be 2020 or 2021 before the pronunciation changes in casual conversation.
--einexile 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle

The article lists both STS-132 and STS-133 as being the last shuttle flight - which is it? Eran of Arcadia 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cateracts

I restored the article about cateracts delated by the pervious user because it came from an article of popular science which is a reliable source. The person who delated the article does not explain why it may not be notible. The source is verifed by popular science and is not an ad. So please do not erease articles about upcoming technologes without offering an explaination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.216.95 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not convincing as to the content of the article/ad. It needs an article name and page numbers, at the least, but I doubt the notability, even so. The place to start would in the article on cateracts (I don't have a spell-checker here, either), as you only quoted the company's press release there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTC Freedom Tower...

I don't think the freedom tower is to be completed by 2010. There is a large banner hanging on an adjacent building at ground zero in Manhattan that says "World Trade Center 2012" with a model of what it will look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.64.50 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)