Talk:2003

Planning on listing every album that may or may not be released in 2003? No other year has album listings in it. -- Zoe

The year pages are only meant to be summaries. For a list of everything, use "what links here". We could feasinly list Sgt Pepper in the relevant year page. In general, it takes several decades for the full cultural impact of something like that to be understood. -- Tarquin

---

Would it be worth it to create an entry for "predictions for 2003?" Future predictions by so-called "psychics" are very popular, though I personally follow the skeptics' crowd that thinks they're so much hot air. One way to prove that "psychic" predictions are bunk would be to record them here in Wikipedia, then compare them at the end of the year and see if any of those predictions came true. -- Modemac

While I love such a practice, the foundermantal question arises do we really need to do in serious encylocpedia? I don't see the reason. -- Taku 22:20 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't that be annual rather than annular for the eclipse? annular meaning ring shaped. I don't know much about space - so there may be a ring shaped eclipse, which is why I haven't changed it. LordRich

Where is the total eclipse? There's no such thing as a total eclipse which occurs all over the world. -- Zoe

I believe an "annular eclipse is one in which the apparent size of the moon is smaller than the sun, so there's a ring of the sun all the way round the dark shape of the moon. & zoe is right, we need to know where -- Tarquin 10:51 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

Anyone add something about SARS? Wshun

---

I really question the deletion of mention of the release of The Ataris' So Long Astoria. What is the justification of this? (6,230 hits on Google.) --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure I'd call the Wright centennial "anticipated." It is December 27 even if no one observes it, or if no one cares, or, for that matter, if the sun explodes in the next six weeks. --Charles A. L. 20:23, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Did Phish do their concert on the 2^nd? I don't reckon this needs to be here in any case: is Wikipedia an Appointments Calendar now as well? Phil 10:18, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 see also 2 Pages not updated since 2003 began 3 Deaths 4 Summary

see also

See also and Years in topic are the same thing. They are redundant and one should be removed. I think the See also is more helpful, and I suggest deleting Years in topic. Kingturtle 08:32, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years which basically agrees with you. --(talk to)BozMo 16:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Pages not updated since 2003 began

I was checking the Old pages section of Wikipedia and found that there are no fewer than 27,445 pages that haven't been updated since 2003 began. Can anyone be responsible for keeping track of how low this number will decrease to?? Please update once a week; it is currently 27,445. 66.245.77.4 03:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• One week has gone by and it is now at 26,435. 66.32.69.46 22:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• After 2 weeks, it has gone down to 25,935. 66.32.97.40 22:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• After 3 weeks, it has gone down to 25,199. 66.32.76.38 22:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• After 4 weeks, it has gone down to 24,467. 66.32.132.150 23:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
• After 5 weeks, it has gone down to 23,439. 66.245.107.192 23:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
• After 6 weeks, it has gone down to 22,922. At this moment, hundreds of these articles are towns in either Minnesota or Pennsylvania. To allow this countdown to get to 0 more quickly, try putting Wiki-boxes at the bottom of towns in Minnesota or Pennsylvania. 66.245.78.247 23:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
• After 7 weeks, we are now at a point where the Ancient Pages section is temporarily disabled. When will we get it back?? 66.245.98.229 14:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• After 8 weeks, the "Ancient Pages" section is back, but there is a message that says that it might not be able to stay up-to-date. Can anyone solve this problem?? 66.245.66.197 14:26, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Now it has gone down to 18,128. Can anyone make sure it goes all the way to 0 by the time 2005 starts?? 66.32.250.180 23:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Special:Ancientpages currently returns 0 results. Brianjd 09:37, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

---

Changing see also box as per discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years first stage--(talk to)BozMo 16:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Why does this page say, Over 30 nations held elections in 2004. — shouldn't that be 2003? But I don't know how many elections took place in each year, so ... someone please fix this. — Timwi 15:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I've tentatively added a navbox template to replace the rather unattractive navigational elements at the top of the page. Dicussion at WikiProject Years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years#Year_Navbox). -- Seth Ilys 23:50, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Deaths

I've removed a lot of the death entries, there was far too many unimportant people, and some double entries. It can still be cut back further. I hope I have not removed anyone of importance, please add back if I have. Astrotrain 18:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did and you removed again. Please dont do that again unless you are prepared to explain yourself beforehand. --Jiang 00:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which ones specifically, I doubt you think all the removals are notable people (eg obscure political activitsts, Catholic bishops etc). I don't need to explain myself to enact deletions, although I am reasonable and will add back people you can show to be worthy of inclusion. Astrotrain 13:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The person making the change has the burden of justifying it. You are the one making the change. Why should I try to justify it? Maybe checking whether the BBC wrote an obituary can be a good indicator. --Jiang 14:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did justify it as shown a few lines up. These people are not notable, even if they have a BBC obituary or not. Astrotrain 16:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Justify what? Most of the people you removed are notable. If there's a dispute, let's mention them one-by-one. You know which ones I reverted... For example, why did you delete Madame Chiang Kai-shek, perhaps one of the most notable people on the list, while leaving someone with less global impact and fame such as Lady Valerie Goulding who doesn't even meet the 1000 person test (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Valerie+Goulding%22+-wikipedia)? Just about every American knows who Mister Rogers is and grew up watching his show--under your criteria that name would surely be kept on the list. --Jiang 22:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summary

The "Summary" section is both POV and inconsistent with Wikiproject Years. I will remove it. Brianjd