Talk:April 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the discussion/talk page for: April_2005.

Contents

See also: Wikipedia:How the Current events page works. For instructions on how to archive Current events at the start of a new month, see: Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events.

Previous discussions:

  • General Archives:
    • Old: 1 | 2 | 3
    • 2004: 4 (Apr 26) | 5 (Jul 26) | 6 (Jul 26) | 7 (Aug 19) | 8 (Aug 19) | 9 (Oct 1) | 10 (Nov 29)
    • 2005: 11 (Mar 21)
  • /Vote on tense (archived)
  • /Setting the context
  • /Too much analysis
  • /Ongoing events (various)


[edit] How to edit days

09-Jan-2008: The edit-buttons might not work at each day (some highly complex, peculiar article formats have been garbled). However, each day in April 2005 really is a WP article of the form:

  • Article name: April_1,_2005
  • Proposed name: Portal:Current events/2005_April_1

Refer to each day, using those article names. I didn't create this design, just trying to help others work with it. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format

09-Jan-2008: The format of this article had been a tall column wrapped as 8 words-per-line, but was changed at some point to wrap as 16 words-per-line (at 800x600 resolution screen size), reducing page length by 40% (making page seem half as long). -Wikid77 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related topics

[ See: Talk:Current events. -Wikid77 ]

[edit] Topics from 2005

[edit] Ridvan ?

When is Ridvan ? The article says it begins at sunset on March 20. On Current events, under 'Upcoming holidays', it's April 21. At least one of these two dates is wrong ??? -- 09:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI: User: Dremo fixed the Ridvan page a few days ago. Accordingly, Ridvan begins on April 21. -- PFHLai 02:38, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Added a Picture to the April 11th. Added it as a Thumbnail. Should It stay, or go.. what do you all think ? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It should go. I don't think that images should be on the current events page. Leave them for the article proper. TimothyPilgrim 11:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why not.. do you think it's too messy? --195.7.55.146 15:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe so. I like the text-only approach for the current events page. If I want more, I'll got to WikiNews. I'm not saying that images aren't nice, but it's also nice to have just text. TimothyPilgrim 17:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I concur. No pictures on Current events at all, or the page will rather cluttered in a flash. The pictures we could add here (like those we add in Template:Itn) generally aren't informative, just decorative. Also, keep im mind that with the navigation box on the left-hand side, folks with narrower or windows or smaller display sizes will only see a cluttered mess. I've removed the pics for now. For those who are interested in comparing and/or continuing the discussion, the version before I removed the pics looked like this. -- Seth Ilys 20:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, thats a consensus then. I just thought I'd try it. --195.7.55.146 09:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having just seen this discussion (and noting that 2 people v 1 person does not a consensus make), I would beg to differ. Some piccis are ok. Probably no more than 1 a day, perhaps 1 every other day, otherwise it really will get cluttered. But every article can be enhanced by a useful picci, and this one is no exception, jguk 19:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it further - why not restrict it to piccis taken by WPians and released by them into the Public Domain? That would encourage beneficial expansion of Wikipedia, without risking us getting bombarded with lots and lots of pics (and the edit wars that could create), jguk 19:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to a picture per-se, but every case where someone has, to date, added one has turned into a layout catastrophe. Left aligned thumbnails totally break the format. Right aligned ones should work in theory, but in practice seem to get muddled up with >edit< markers or to make the page flow very badly. We should insist that they be included by means of a specific template (say template:current_events_thumbnail) which we've spent some considerable effort to validate works okay on a full range of browsers (floaty CSS is far from consistent), page-widths, and on a collection of some of our archived current events. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we're counting, then I object to pictures on current anything events pages. I pointed Jguk here after he added a photo to Current sports events, which I removed (and he reinstated). In this particular instance I object to the picture both on layout grounds and on suitability (IMHO a photo of a, frankly not very important, university cricket match is setting the threshold very low). -- Avaragado 09:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please, write clearer

Please, write like that :

* USA, Washington : 2 people were running after a dog.
* UN, Beijing : Bush declare than everyone is free to run if he want, and added " That's good for health ".

that's a better way for everybody ;)Yug 15:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese-Indian talks of April 12, 2005

have you some news about the Chinese-Indian talks ? They want make a definitive peace to improve their relationship, cooperate in computer and hight-tech industry and were talking about a Chinese-Indian free-market, so something like 2,5 billion people. There is the french summary of this talk:

  • 12 avril, New Delhi : un accord Sino-Indien a été signé afin de définir les « grands principes » d'une réconciliation entre ces 2 pays. L'Inde et la Chine espèrent améliorer leurs relations afin de favoriser leurs échanges et leur développement. L'idée d'une immense zone de libre-échange a aussi été évoquée. Cela concernerait 2,5 milliards d'hommes.

that's the main international news in Wikipedia.fr, and it seem haven't any information there, on wikipedia.en Yug 11:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Current Events

I realized yesterday that there was no Australian Current Events page in the English-speaking wikipedia. Now there is. No Barn Star necessary. I just wanted everyone to know it's there and ready for editing. MPS 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drudge Report?

From the current version of the page:

The story, if true, is important. But is the Drudge Report really a reputable source for this page? I would argue not. -- Avaragado 09:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just pick one of the dozens of similar stories at news.google.com "North Korea" to replace it. Pcb21| Pete 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laotian Rock Rat

The dating on the new rodent family, Laonastidae, is weird. The journal issue is considered December, 2004. The date that the journal was issued (and accessible to the public) is 18 April, 2005. So it is current. --Aranae 19:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Days of the week on current events

I propose a that from now on, the dates of current events be pegged to days of the week. for instance, "April 24" would be "April 24 (Sunday)." I got this idea from foreign current events sites. MPS 01:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't the UK general election in curent events??

Why is Expo 2005 in the current events list, but United Kingdom general election, 2005 (happening in 10 days, final campaigning underway) isn't??

It's in "Upcoming Elections", that's the only place it needs to be. --Golbez 13:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck am i doing removing sources?

I was recently blasted for removing sources from this page in an attempt to reduce the page size. Here's what happened on my talk page:

[edit] What the heck are you doing?

What the heck are you doing to April 2005 Trevor? Month pages always have links to stop people adding in phoney unsourced stories. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't start doing something like that without putting something up on the talk page first to see if anyone has any objections. Average Earthman 12:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, ok, I guess I touched a nerve here. I thought I was doing right by paring down an oversized, bloated page. I suppose sources are good for verifying facts on a page but this is certainly not the standard. If you look to previous months, the further back you go the less individual items are sourced. Does that mean that everything on April 2003 should be removed as unproven hearsay? I don't think so. Does that mean that we need to go back and find external web pages that show that everything on April, 2005, 2000s, and 21st century is proven fact. No. The way wikipedia works is: people post whatever they want and the edits either stays or is changed/removed if someone finds a problem. I think the reason these month pages look the way they do is because they were original the Current events page, and people treat that page as a "Breaking news" repository. Thats what Wikinews is for!

Take these sourced events for example:

April 29

April 28

April 27

April 26

April 25

Five sourced items for the same event! And if you look at the souce it's 26 lines long (on my screen). I can barely read it if I want to edit it. I didn't even look into May 2005 but I bet there are more there.

Or how about this:

April 28

A lot of leader visit a lot of countries, why is this noteworthy?. Does the source say?

Or:

April 26

Is this the first time this has happened? The last? Did the outside world even notice?

April 22

Rumors abound? This is a fact is it. Well, rumors abound that this page is way too big and it needs a reduction.

My proposal:

1. Remove sources from the page (after it is no longer the current events page, I'll leave you news junkies that much).

2. Remove multiple enteries from the page. The event is notable. The slow increase in casualty counts is not. Put the final count at the originating entry when its final, or update it accordingly.

Start with this and the page may get down to a reasonable size (135 KBs! Come on!).


Right. Now discuss.

Trevor macinnis 14:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion from Parker Whittle

Can you show some edits where other editors have been paring down current event pages once they are moved to the page for a given month? If it's not the conventional practice, I would argue that you should achieve consensus beforehand. I think your best case is the Amagasaki rail crash stories, but if another editor really wants to see all the versions there, I don't see that it should be a showstopper. Parker Whittle 19:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2006

[edit] Article format

As of 2006-04-12, the article has a completely different format to all the other months. Unless someone can explain why this should be so, I'll revert it back to the standard format. However I don't want to start an edit/revert war, so I'll leave it a few days first. -- SGBailey 23:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Several Aprils and Augusts have this format - I'm not sure why either. — sjorford++ 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 April and 26 April

The entries about 25 April and 26 April are identical so there must have gone something wrong. Could someone check out the right version and fix it? --Proofreader 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topics after 2007

Any topics below are after 2007. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)