DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:2002

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Topics dated 2002

[edit]

Moved calendar to 2002 calendar

"Dec 4 - Total Solar Eclipse" - eh? Where?! -- User:Khendon

Mainly southern Africa. See this map. --Zundark 12:16 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

who knows. Im linking the term, may that page gices a list! -- Tarquin 11:07 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

Please stop adding "January 2002" etc links. AFAIK, we're sticking to the template. Those pages are on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion -- Tarquin 20:45 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)~

Only because you voted to delete them. I'll agree that January 2002 isn't terribly useful, but the rest are archives of the Current events page (which started getting used in earnest in February 2002), and are very useful. -- RobLa 01:40 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
I've added the months back in now, per discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I'll also add a suggestion to add this to the template at Wikipedia:Timeline standards - RobLa 00:36 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Tarquin

Topics dated 2004

[edit]

Is it the International Year of Ecotourism and Mountains, or the International Year 2002 like a 2000 one. of Ecotourism and the International Year of Mountains? -- Zoe

I just removed www.webpostcalender.com - It is either a blog or a discussion site with mostly personal entries like the owner's child, etc. - Tεxτurε 19:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Changing see also box as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years --(talk to)BozMo 16:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've tentatively added a navbox template to replace the rather unattractive navigational elements at the top of the page. Dicussion at WikiProject Years. -- Seth Ilys 23:50, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add important events that were overlooked? (I have in mind an inter-governmental lawsuit.) Kevin Baas | talk 04:06, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Child "actors"

[edit]
  • I cannot see the benefit of listing the births of babies who appear as the children of characters in US 2002 like a 2006 and 2008 one soaps etc. They are hardly actors in the sense of the word, and are unlikely to be notable in the future. Astrotrain 15:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bouncing satellites ?

[edit]
March 1 - The Envisat environmental satellite successfully reaches an orbit 800km above the Earth on its 11th launch, carrying the heaviest payload to date at 8500kg.

Satellites usually launch only once. Should the credit for 11 launches go to the rocket type? Hmm, looks like Ariane 5 was the ticket; I'll put that in. Shenme 18:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quaoar what

[edit]

Some explanation of "quaoar" seems needed. 72.26.64.174 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)CGS[reply]

Agreed/done: I added "planetoid Quaoar...orbiting the Sun in the Kuiper belt" (The previous text was baiting, like saying "Hunt the Wumpus succeeded" so anyone curious had to click the article-link to find the basics: oh, a planetoid). -Wikid77 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halle Berry

[edit]

Shouldn't her Oscar win be listed as an event?? -72.191.215.43 at 20:53, 9 June 2007

We don't normally include awards. Jim Michael (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year 2002

[edit]

01-July-2002: I have restored the prefix "Year 2002" which some people seem obsessed to remove from the yearly articles. It allows a search-engine to match "year 2002" and, of course, conforms to the age-old "Never start a sentence with a numeral" (Google-search-Never-etc.) plus the word "year" is much shorter than the formal "Nineteen Eighty-four" and such. Now, with that settled, no more "This article is about the year 2002" (big duh), and the top hat-note has been trimmed to the simple "Also see: 2002 (number)" as a quick one-line item. Of course, numerous other articles have rambled with similar yada-yada hat notes (such as "Joan of Arc"), but there are numerous yearly articles to hint a pattern that they're obviously about the year, so no need to ramble, "This article is about the year nnnn" (if you see that, please shorten those hat-notes). -Wikid77 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002 (disambiguation)

[edit]

Simply changed the 2002 (number) page to 2002 (disambiguation) as the links do not refer to the number in the same way as the article 2000 (number) does, but instead refer to other links involving "2002". The 2002 (number) page still exists so that anyone can create a proper page for that subject if they wish. MXVN (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2002. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 08:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add October 27, 2002 as the date of release of GTA Vice City

[edit]

GTA Vice City is one of the most popular game ever made that has sold millions of copies all over the world. It was also named game of the year 2002 by prominent game publishers and journals. Rocksar's GTA series itself is extremely popular and I have noticed other articles mentioning release dates of other game series like Final Fantasy VII in the 1997 article (the first GTA game used to be mentioned in that article too) and GTA Vice City was a far more popular game than it. So why are those games allowed whereas GTA Vice City is not? And statistics show GTA Vice City has had far more world wide popularity to this date when it has numerous updates and modifications compared to and Final Fantasy games and it even made headlines for discrimination against Haitian refugees in the US and has caused legal battles. So if it is allowed for release dates of world wide popular games to be mentioned, why cant October 27 be written as the release date of one of the most world wide popular video game of all time? I request it please be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.178.114 (talk • contribs)

@58.97.178.114: while the game may have been very popular, the release date itself doesn't seem generally notable as an event. Furthermore, the guideline for recent year pages (of which 2002 is one), indicates that video game releases should only appear on the relevant subject year page (e.g., 2002 in video gaming). With regard to Final Fantasy VII on the 1997 page: I have removed it under the same rationale for not being an intrinsically notable event.—Laoris (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time to clarify the matter, I understand now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.133.117 (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

[edit]

I've added Robbin Crosby to the list of Deaths in 2002 and it got removed. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.50.203 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prevent this page from becoming unwieldy, the editing guidelines for recent years require a stricter level of notability than the encyclopedia at-large. See WP:RYB for a description of these requirements.—Laoris (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Births

[edit]

In my opinion, none of the recent additions to "Births" are internationally notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being known primarily for Eurovision is one of the exclusion criteria; being known only for one event probably should be one of the exclsion criteria. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything about being known for Eurovision on WP:RYB or WP:UNDUE. But if those are the criteria being used, then Gaia Cauchi and Felix of Denmark should be excluded (only known for Eurovision and being royalty respectively), and Levi Miller should be included (not known for only one event). I'll make those changes to the article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be consensus that some royalty should be included, but that Eurovision should be disregarded in determining "international importance". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When was a consensus reached on not including people known only for participating in Eurovision? If there is such a consensus then it should probably be added to an official policy. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by definition, going to Eurovision has no international significance. "Winning" might, but consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and at Wikipedia:Recent Years seems to be that Eurovision is entertainment, rather than a "contest". If Wikipedia: WikiProject Music thinks it appropriate in "year in music" articles, it would be their decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose removing Napoleon Beazley as he has no international notability and the article's a mess. Deb (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose removing Lil Mosey as having only limited notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipses

[edit]

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

[edit]

February 11: CBeebies gets launched and CBBC gets a new look and channel by BBC. 7heGame (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's for 2002 in British television. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collage thoughts

[edit]

Please let me know if anyone has any disagreements on the images included in the collage, and I will put it up for vote. Thanks The ganymedian (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the collage because one of the events was an unreferenced addition to the Events section, which has now been removed in accordance with the standards for Year pages. Deb (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The ganymedian:, what about the Prestige oil spill is that a good option 4me689 (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there is a discussion about the 2002 Collage at User_talk:4me689/collage_discussions#2002 4me689 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the D.C. sniper attacks and the United States Department of Homeland Security are obviously not important enough and can be replaced by two of the three incidents of the 2002 European floods, 2002 Bali bombings, and Moscow theater hostage crisis. Nagae Iku (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. 4me689 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion with overview sources

[edit]

Barnards.tar.gz & Levivich: You've both expressed an interest in this style of sourcing for year articles. I've expanded the body of this article in a similar fashion to 2001. But this time, while editing, I focused heavily on overview sources without using any sources about specific events (permalink for posterity). I've found that these overview sources help when writing about statistics and trends. But there are also some drawbacks. The number of sources of this type are limited, they lean far more Western and US biased than the events timeline at the bottom of the article, and there are a lot of major omissions. A few notes on 2002 and how it compares to 2001, as well as a non-comprehensive list of omissions that probably have enough weight to be covered in this article:

I think the best solution is somewhere between the sourcing in 2001 and the sourcing in 2002. Neither gets it quite right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and for your work on this. What you've said makes sense, and I'm not sure what the best solution is vis-a-vis sources... these year in review sources definitely have their drawbacks. I will not have a lot of time over the next week or so but will come back to this and take a closer look and see if I can find anything helpful. Glad to see these articles are being expanded! Levivich (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having now had a closer look at it, I want to once again say thanks for researching and writing all of this. I'm not as concerned about the list of omissions/under-representations, none of which really strike me as being major omissions or under-representations, at least on a global scale. I'm not going to go through all of them, but just to talk about a few categories:
  • Art: Doesn't surprise me that there may not be sources talking about "most significant" artwork or architecture of 2002, for a couple reasons I can imagine. First, there may not have been any really significant artworks or works of architecture completed in 2002. It's not like a masterpiece is created every year. Second, identifying significant artworks may only be possible in retrospect, and it may take years or decades for the world to recognize a 2002 artwork as being "great". This is especially true on the global scale. It'd be OK with me if, for some years, we only had country-specific artworks listed and nothing on the "main" page.
  • Milestones in multi-year processes: I don't think Euro is a major omission in 2002 because I'm not sure the introduction of physical Euro currency in 2002 was that big of a deal, as compared with other dates relating to the Euro, e.g. 1992, 1999. Similarly, I'm not sure every operation in Operation Enduring Freedom makes the cut (as opposed to 2001 and 2014). SORT probably wasn't that big of a deal, esp. when compared with New START and others. The ICC formally opened in 2002, but... who cares when it formally opened? The passage of the Rome Statute in 1998, the ICC's first arrest in 2005, and first conviction in 2012, were all probably more important than jus the date on which it formally started; so I'm not surprised if ICC opening in 2002 is not in the review sources.
  • Regular events: SARS 2002-2004 infected "only" 8,000 people and killed less than 1000; that's not that big of an epidemic, see List of epidemics#Chronology. I don't think each of these epidemics is a major event in the year it happens. FIFA, Olympics, and other regularly-scheduled events may also not make "year in review" articles, and I don't think we need to include them in these year articles.
So I think the narrative prose is great, and it's not really missing anything; the list of omissions doesn't change my mind; and I would still be fine if the entire "Events" timeline was removed, leaving only the prose. (Not that I'm going to delete it or anything.)
Thank you again for doing this! Levivich (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A great start. Did you come across this source: [1], which gives the World Cup a prominent position? These review articles don’t contain much detail, but I think we should use them for determining weight and context, not as the sole source of content. For example if we use the above source to determine that the World Cup was a significant event in sports in 2002, we can elaborate on that using other sources (e.g. gleaned from the 2002 FIFA World Cup article).
I can see that Anglocentrism will be an issue here, but that’s an issue that affects the rest of the encyclopaedia too. Regarding the limited number of review sources, I would rather have a shorter article with more robust sourcing and well-established due weight, than a longer article expanded because we as editors personally think an event was significant. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a shorter article with more robust sourcing" In other words, an uninformative stub article. That would be a good candidate for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage depreciation

[edit]

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thebiguglyalien frequently discussed about the collage image in the year 2001 article that fails WP:GALLERY. Should we remove it same as ongoing discussion at Talk:2001/Archive 1#2001 collage image candidates. 36.82.203.68 (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. GoldRomean (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2002/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GoldRomean (talk · contribs) 01:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I think I'll take this. Review to come in a week or two, if that's a problem let me know and I'll nom this for deletion so someone else can pick it up :). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GoldRomean, I'm in no rush whatsoever, but it's been three weeks now so I just wanted to check in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry about this - expect comments in the coming days, and feel free to remind me more if I forget again :). GoldRomean (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, wondering if you had access to Britannica Book of the Year 2003? GoldRomean (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If so, could you email, say, pages 221, 1, and 506? Otherwise, no worries and I'll check a few more online ones :). GoldRomean (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, @Thebiguglyalien, most of review is done! Sorry again for the delays. GoldRomean (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GoldRomean I've made all of the suggested changes. I notice most of them are typographical issues rather than good article criteria, although these are important to correct as well. I can email you page 221 of Britannica Book of the Year, but pages 1 and 506 of this source are not used in the article. I could email you different page numbers, or pages from other sources. You might also be able to access some of them through Internet Archive with WP:IAACCESS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, thanks for the reminder (in future reviews I'll probably do the small stuff myself now). Silly me, yeah if you have those pages from the Annual Register that would be great, otherwise how about 352 and 228? Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. Awesome work; this was a really great quality article with very little problems :). GoldRomean (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose review

[edit]
  • Internal conflicts: "seven conflicts ended in 2001" - do you mean in 2002?
    • Changed to "had ended", the conflicts ending in 2001 is why there were fewer conflicts in 2002.
  • Link a hostage crisis instead of hostage crisis.
    • Done.
  • Art and architecture: "The architecture world focused on the rebuilding of the World Trade Center" - I find it kind of hard to believe that the entire architecture world's main focus was that on that, could you rephrase (or send source)?
    • Changed to "was a major focus"
  • Popular media: "country music and hip-hop music" → "country and hip-hop music"
    • Done.
  • I think it could be mentioned that The Eminem Show was the best-selling album in 2002, as said in lead (right now, it's just "Globally, the best-selling albums in 2002 were The Eminem Show by Eminem, Let Go by Avril Lavigne, and the Elvis Presley greatest hits album ELV1S: 30 #1 Hits."). If you know the highest-grossing film, I think that could be mentioned in the lead as well.
    • Done and done.
  • Sports: Worth mentioning the 2002 Winter Paralympics?
    • I figure that would be better covered at 2002 in sports since it's not a top-level sporting event.
  • Economy: Weary about the phrase "correcting from", are there better alternatives?
    • Changed to "recovering from", open to other wordings.
  • Link "information technology" and "telecommunications"?
    • Done.
  • Environment and weather: "in Australia" → "in Australia"
    • Done.
  • "western United States" → "the Western United States".
    • Done.
  • "The Kitulo National Park" → "Kitulo National Park".
    • Done.
  • Link El Niño?
    • Done.
  • Health "ebola" should be capitalized.
    • Done.
  • Politics and law: "leaving it unable to fulfill its usual role of seeking action against alleged cases of systemic human rights violations around the world" - not sure if this is WP:NPOV.
    • Removed.
  • Possibly link warlords.
    • Done.
  • "A wave of social pension reform took place in European nations, with Finland... and Switzerland all in various phases of implementation." - Not sure about the use of the word "in", which suggests present tense, maybe "having been in"?
    • Changed to past tense.
  • "Similar reforms took place in Japan and Singapore." → "Similar reforms also occured in Japan and Singapore."
    • Done.
  • Religion - "most prominently by Muslim attack" → "most prominently by a Muslim attack" - also, the article said the cause was disputed, so I would hesitate about calling it a "Muslim attack".
    • Changed to "an attack".
  • Link to Godhra train burning, probably from "a Muslim attack on a Hindu train car".
    • Done.

Source review

[edit]
  • [13] Green tickY
  • [21] Green tickY
  • [28] Green tickY
  • [34] - Not sure it's specifically said that "Typhoon Rusa was the deadliest typhoon in 2002", just that it was the deadliest in South Korea.
    • Fixed.
  • [38] Green tickY
  • [49] Green tickY
  • [89] - Source states 18 were killed, the Wikipeia article states 17, citing this - looks like it's 18.
    • Changed to 18.
  • [137] Green tickY
  • [9]:1 Green tickY
  • [9]:506 Green tickY
  • [8]:221 Green tickY
  • [8]:352 Green tickY
  • [8]:228 Green tickY

Other criteria

[edit]
  • Images checked, all good - mostly Public Domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, CC BY 4.0, etc. Criteria 3-6 good too. Earwig doesn't want to work but as main source is offline it probably won't be much use anyway :).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2026 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2101 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2067 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]