Talk:December 19
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
|
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box. |
More anniversaries:
|
School
editIs there a reason "Loudoun County High School" returning on this day in 2005 is a noteworthy event? I found no news articles regarding the high school on Google, and found nothing on the school's site regarding the importance of the event. Sodium70mg 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Probably just some self-important kid adding their own school to the article. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Megan Jones
editAccording to her biography, it says that Jones was born in 1967? Sounds like vandalism to me. Chris 02:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Battle of Verdun
editWhen did The Battle of Verdun end ? Didn't it end on december 18 ? --213.145.115.162 (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
WTC fires
editIt sounds a bit preposterous that the fires at WTC took more than 3 months to extinguish.. --Jacob.jose (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
T2 Laboratories
editUser:Mufka writes, "Event is not globally notable." For my future reference, how many deaths are necessary to make an event globally notable? Apparently, 4 deaths and 14 injuries are not enough. Please advise as to the threshold number to pass muster for global notability. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It has little to do with the number of deaths. It has more to do with the global reach of the event. It is unlikely that the event will make headlines in China or South Africa. Even if it did, it wouldn't be in the news a year from now on its anniversary. It only received a 90 word mention in the New York Times on page A24, so its barely nationally notable. It is likely that all national reporting of the event will end today. Check out Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time for some general guidelines. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Much obliged for the quick reply with a useful link. Art Smart (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now that the incident has gotten continued coverage in multiple media, I've gone ahead and added the event back to this page. If Mufka still feels strongly that it is not notable enough, then feel free to delete it again. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Multiple local media doesn't mean its globally notable. Of course it is newsworthy near where it happened. Every reference in the article is either the company's web site or a local news source. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that all references to date are from local sources. I'm disappointed that the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has not yet posted the results of their preliminary investigation on the csb.gov website. The local news articles reported that the CSB issued their preliminary findings last Friday, so their website should be updated any day now. My guess is that the preliminary findings were handed out on paper at a local news conference, hence the local news coverage. To the extent that methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) is used globally as an octane booster, and if the ultimate findings bear on the manufacture of MMT regardless of where, then this issue may have much more global importance. I favor erring on the side of inclusion, but again, if you disagree strongly, then go ahead and delete the entry. I certainly will defer to your judgement. Thanks again for taking the time to examine this issue. Art Smart (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, if the explosion has a bearing on the MMT issue globally, then it will merit inclusion. Until then it should be removed. Generally we err on the side of exclusion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that all references to date are from local sources. I'm disappointed that the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has not yet posted the results of their preliminary investigation on the csb.gov website. The local news articles reported that the CSB issued their preliminary findings last Friday, so their website should be updated any day now. My guess is that the preliminary findings were handed out on paper at a local news conference, hence the local news coverage. To the extent that methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) is used globally as an octane booster, and if the ultimate findings bear on the manufacture of MMT regardless of where, then this issue may have much more global importance. I favor erring on the side of inclusion, but again, if you disagree strongly, then go ahead and delete the entry. I certainly will defer to your judgement. Thanks again for taking the time to examine this issue. Art Smart (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Multiple local media doesn't mean its globally notable. Of course it is newsworthy near where it happened. Every reference in the article is either the company's web site or a local news source. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Altair 8800 computer
editAbout the December 19, 1974 date for the introduction of the Altair 8800 computer on the cover of the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics. I know the magazine was released before the cover date but I have note found a source to say it was released on the 19th. The date is close to that. In June 1975, Jerry Ogden wrote this in his Popular Electronics column.
- "The break through in low-cost microprocessors occurred just before Christmas 1974, when the January issue of Popular Electronics reached readers … " - Ogdin, Jerry (June 1975). "Computer Bits". Popular Electronics. 7 (6). New York: Ziff-Davis: 69. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtpc6800 (talk • contribs)
- It didn't meet the requirements for Selected Anniversaries, so I removed it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
1606
edit"The Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery depart England carrying settlers who found, at Jamestown, Virginia, the first of the thirteen colonies that became the United States."
This should state founded, not found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.3.73 (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Virginia Company ships leaving England is in Dec. 19 and 20 articles
edit"1606 – The Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery depart England carrying settlers who found, at Jamestown, Virginia, the first of the thirteen colonies that became the United States" is in this article and "1606 – The Virginia Company loads three ships with settlers and sets sail to establish Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas" is in the article for December 20". At least one of them is wrong but I don't know which one. 24.249.175.130 (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"Irish-born"
editFor 1956 we have "Irish-born physician John Bodkin Adams is arrested in connection with the suspicious deaths of more than 160 patients. Eventually he is convicted only of minor charges"... why refer to him as being Irish born? I know he was a bad man, but why refer to him as such?
The Hopetoun Blunder
editThe wording is either incorrect or unclear. To me it suggests the blunder was Hopetoun appointing Lyne as Premier of NSW. This is not only impossible (Gs-G commission PMs not premiers) but Lyne was already the premier of NSW. The blunder was Hopetoun choosing Lyne to be the first PM of Australia. Since there was no election, Hopetoun chose the premier from the most populated state but Lyne didn't have the support on the floor of the federal parliament. Can the wording be changed? Tigerman2005 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)