Talk:1961

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

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. Years Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.

Just caught a cursory glance of this page, but is it only about what happened in America in 1961? Er... Maybe there is a Rest-of-World 1961 page lurking somewhere? ...I'll go look... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.84.29 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was simply due to the Americentric focus, due to the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of Wikipedia editors are Americans. Of course, all the world's important events should be on the article. Crime researcher (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on my talk page on page layout.

For most of the last three hundred years there is inconsistency and duplication between the year in topic paragraph, the "see also" box and what is on the year by topic pages. Prior to 1950 I am pretty convinced we can painlessly (except for sore fingers) delete all of the year in topic paragraphs and ensure that the material goes into a "see also" box, creating such a box where none exists. Post 1950, particularly from the "year in US television" link a lot of material has been added to this paragraph as highlights (sometimes making up most of the page content pointed at).

Personally I think we should still delete the paragraph, keep the box linking to the topic sites and move any particularly important parts of the year in topic paragraph to the main chronological list. This does involve undoing quite a bit of work which someone has done.

Therefore, unlike for prior to 1950 (where I've said no objection= I do it) for post 1950 I won't touch these pages unless a significant number of people agree with the change. (I am also unlikely to get the pre 1950 stuff done before summer unless the service speed improves dramatically). (talk)--BozMo 14:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the next upside down year is 6009 is highly dependent on typeface. On a digital clock face, it's likely to be 2005, 2255, 2552, 5002, 5522, 5225, and then finally 6009. It also adds some before 1881. Iamo

2005 would be 5002 inverted using the Seven-segment digital display. The others you listed would most likely be so reversed. 6009 stands. mal7798

If by upside down you mean rotated, 6009 IS valid, but flipped it would be 9006, just like 1961 would become 1691 flipped. Rotated, on a digital clock 2002 would still read 2002. Am I confusing points here? :S Vman81 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article should say 'rotated', and it is typeface dependent, since "1" often looks as different when rotated as "2" and "5", and more so than "8"... On the premise that 1961 "looks the same" when rotated - which must be using a digital clock-face, then 2002 does too, as does 2112, 2222, 2552 etc? dotdotdotcomma 10 Feb 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

According to the Magazine "Earth", published by the american Geological Institute, in January 1961 there was a reactor meltdown in the US, see http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/1ad-7d9-1-2 - obviously this is a nearly forgotten case. Plehn (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: in WP it is mentioned here: Idaho_National_Laboratory#Fatal_accident Plehn (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong, either here or there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15#Fastest_flights: Flight 64 26 July 1962 3,989 mph (6,420 km/h) 18.7 miles (30.1 km) Neil Armstrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.187.15.199 (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Julia Gillard official photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Prime Minister Bill English.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]