Talk:2010 in New Zealand

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Time Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this really sufficiently notable to be included here? The visit was brief and involved no major public occasions. Have all the many similarly minor royal visits been included in previous Year in NZ articles? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NZ Herald has at least 40 articles relating to the visit, I think it's ok. XLerate (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable enough - the problem is more that we have omitted nearly everything else. I would expect these articles to have as many as 60 events listed in this section. I have almanac coverage of royal visits prior to 1986, and will get around to including those. dramatic (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a standard of what is notable and what is not. I can't believe that there are actually 60 entries per year that will be historically notable (as opposed to news items of temporary notability). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a guideline at Wikipedia:Recent years, for the global year it says news coverage on at least three different continents. For the New Zealand year, I can suggest criteria:

• an event which has it own article
• significant coverage on at least 7 different days
• significant international coverage
• anything New Zealand related in the global year article

XLerate (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum should certainly be that the event has its own article. Articles are frequently created on the barest minimum of notability so that critera won't keep all the trivia out which is why it should be the first criteria. Anything that makes a Year article would have to be included in a Year in NZ article (note that the Christchurch Earthquake did not make the 2010 article). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prince william was in nz as official rep to the Queen and made an official engagement opening the New Supreme court obvious u dont watch the news enoungh? Dylan Naqova (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be some level of notability for inclusion in the Deaths section of this article? We obviously can't/shouldn't list everybody, but is there any way of setting a minimum level of notability?

Whatever the standard is I can't see that Tom Newnham qualifies. I'm tempted to remove him as a lot of far more notable people have not been included, but maybe others have different opinions on this... DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that, for such a small country as NZ, anybody who has an article on WP gets included here. Schwede66 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how/why the deaths of people who meet the bare minimum of notability for an article could be considered notable enough for inclusion in an article which is essentially a summary of the more important events of the Year in NZ. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the 1970s, Newnham was fairly well known in New Zealand, or at the very least, the organisation CARE was. However, I'm inclined to agree with Schwede that anyone with an article (and a strong relationship with NZ) should have birth and death years listed in these articles. Are there examples of such listing being removed? It's not a strong argument against having them that no one has bothered to add many.-gadfium 02:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 in New Zealand. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150125012900/http://www.nranz.com:80/competitions/ballinger_belt to http://www.nranz.com/competitions/ballinger_belt

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 17:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]