Talk:1966

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.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Election#Difficulties with elections|free elections]] The anchor (#Difficulties with elections) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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 14:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

International Convenant on Political and Civil Rights with the First Optional Protocol should be at least mentioned here...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.192.226 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a link about Arthur Calwell (June 22)? Might be handy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.115.196 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated multiple times on Talk:Jimmy Wales and the long-standing consensus, which is detailed in Jimmy's bio, Larry's bio, Wikipedia's article and all those relating to them, is that they are co-founders. This is supported by multiple reliable sources, dating back to the early days of Wikipedia, and including Jimmy's own words. The 13 debates on the matter are available here. To say there is a "crusade" is inappropriate. There should be consistency in the project, and it is verifiable fact that Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia with Larry Sanger. لennavecia 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need a ref that indicates the connection between 1966 and Wales allegedly being co-founder. Remember founder does not negate co-founder. Check the Jimmy Wales talk page and you will see this issue is disputed and thus should not spill over on to this page unless it can be proven that Wales being co-founder relates to the year he was born. Also note that QuackGuru has lied in his edit summary, claiming it was a typo when he has bee involved in this dispute for over a year. BTW, Jenna, you keep claiming you have consensus for your opinion on this one which is never a very impressive argument concerning an issue which clearly has no consensus even though you wish it did, hence its rumbling on for years. If we cna prove this dispute has any relation to 1966 I am willing to change my mind, especially if we can get a reference to do this.Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian government resigns? what does this mean? There is no explanation on the page covering belgian history 128.230.234.35 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. There's also no mention at Pierre Harmel - the guy in charge of the gov't at the time. Apparently isn't very newsworthy and could probably be removed. Wknight94 ^talk 12:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In March, there were many sightings of UFOs over Michigan. This is discussed on the J. Allen Hynek page.211.225.33.104 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Catlossuarez46 added so many people one edit by one edit. In fact, the names he added in the deaths section, most of them are not-notable or most of them have less than nine non-Wikipedias. This is something what the 1907 page had a month ago. Hebrides added so many names in the births section, that most of them are not notable or they have less than nine non-English Wikipedias. I think this should go in the talk page of the WikiProject Years, since it says, "The maximum recommended size for an article is 100k." 207.161.13.82 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Article size, rather than some passing notice on a talk page, is the editing guideline. For prose type articles, there is a suggestion that 100k is recommended, but read WP:SIZERULE on that page: "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means). They apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." Emphasis added; these year articles are lists. The births are lists; the deaths are lists; etc. Please understand the reasons for things rather than blindly quoting things and you'll get the right result more than not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, if you contend that the deaths added are of non-notable people; nominate them (all?) for deletion. I think your idea of what's notable is substantially different than the community's. Stick around and learn rather than try to force your views through massive deletions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry about deleting the names, but the Recent Years says that the person needs to have more than nine non-English Wikipedias in order to meet. If less than nine, they get removed. Those reverts are not even vandalism too. It's that I know the Recent Years and I respect the policies as well. Do you understand what I'm saying. 207.161.13.82 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand, but when you read Recent Years it applies to 2000s, not 1960s. It's to counter recentism. Take TV personalities; where nearly anyone in a TV series is "notable" by WP standards. In the 1960s, for example, in most of North America there were under 10 TV networks - some areas had only one, two, or three - tv was not non-stop, there was no internet (of course). So how many tv people could meet notability if there were only TV shows for part of a day and only a few purveyors of nationwide shows? Compare that to 2000s, with non-stop TV, hundreds of channels with original content, lots of shows means lots of notable people. I think my cable now has 300 channels from sports, to religion, to childrens, to nature, to non-stop telenovelas, to news, in addition to the "regular" networks that did exist in the 1960s. So to cut back on the recentism, recent years was adopted. Doesn't really figure into the 1960s. Consider your premier of Manitoba, Greg Selinger, only 5 interwikis (1 in a dead language, no less) - would you think that makes him not notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little. But I heard that there's going to be a new premier of Manitoba, Brian Pallister on May 3, 2016. But the same time, I think, "Should Pallister be in the births section in the 1954 page?" Do you see what I mean? And another, should the 2000 and 2001 articles be part in the Recent years too? 142.161.251.189 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Things are rather squishy around the edge, but 1966 is not on the edge. Typically, when things are squishy (i.e., "no consensus" in Wikipedia parlance) whether to keep or delete material; it's kept. Just the way things tend to work around here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know, but there should be a Deaths in 1966 article on Wikipedia, even though it only redirects to 1966#Deaths. What do you think? 207.161.13.82 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The population was 3,397,475,247 but I don't know where to put it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1966. 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/20080216033755/http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR67-AF.pdf to http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR67-AF.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file JanetJacksonStateOfTheWorldTour1 (cropped).jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Wikimania 2016 - Press conference with Jimmy Wales and Katherine Maher 01 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis for this revert.[1] The subject meets the criteria for inclusion here. Perhaps the reverting editor can explain their view. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be included in the Year articles, subjects should have achieved a level of international notability. If the subject has not already been found to be notable enough to be included in 1966 in the United States, how can he be considered internationally notable? Deb (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly internationally notable. The test is whether he is in 10 different wikipedias. Which he is. You might also note that he is covered in articles in publications from a number of nations. And acquired his notability in large part in two nations, in which he lived. As to whether he is also included in some other wp article - that is of zero importance. WP is not an RS. Lots of people are eligible for wp lists and are not on them - it is the whim of wp editors. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no such "test", but whether anyone has bothered to add the person to the relevant Year in Topic page(s) is a good indication. Why haven't you?
2. "Lots of people are eligible for wp lists and are not on them - it is the whim of wp editors." No - where we find inconsistency, we attempt to remove it. Deb (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • As to 1, ok - though it should not be determinative, since this meets the indication the page calls for - being in 10 different wikipedias, and i do not see that as a wp guideline (is it just a personal guideline), I added it. And - aren't there hundreds - or thousands - of such in the date page but not in the country page? Also, I don't think you have wp guideline support for your personal view as to who is "lesser" - that is way too wp editor subjective, zero guideline support. As to 2, I don't think that is a wp rule at all. There is no deadline. WP is not an RS. Once can't say, it is not on wp list x, so - as we might with an RS - it is not notable (enought). Again, that seems like a non-wp personal view. Is it? 2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are many individuals listed in these pages who don't meet a high standard of notability and need to be removed in order to make the birth and death lists manageable; some of us are doing our best to rectify this situation. Likewise, there are some who are hindering this effort.

We can of course have a discussion on this here. You can propose to include your preferred individuals in this article and others can offer their opinions. If there is consensus to include him, we'll do so. Deb (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, are you perhaps making up your own "this is my page" rule, that is not in the guidelines? Anyway, as I said he's clearly internationally notable, and I've indicated why. The test is whether he is in 10 different wikipedias. Which he is. You might also note that he is covered in articles in publications from a number of nations. And acquired his notability in large part in two nations, in which he lived. I'll add him, as there's been no discussion, and certainly no guideline-based complaint. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9436:A9:2806:77B3 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No, that "test" was never agreed and is now in abeyance as it proved too easy to circumvent. I've advised you to obtain consensus. Deb (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shōwa 41 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Shōwa 41 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Showa 41 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 15#Showa 41 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The collage is extremely US-centric, the verbose and opinionated captions even more so; there seems to have been no attempt to obtain consensus before adding it. Please make the necessary improvements before restoring the images. How can a UK election result be described purely in relation to its very minor impact on a US war? How can an album released by a US group in the same year as Revolver and the John Lennon "Jesus" controversy be considered the only musical event important enough for inclusion? Deb (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I was still adding information about the collage, The0Quester submitted it before I did.But that's okay.

   The difference between me and his collage: 
   South Vietnam Buddhist Uprising, South Africa Border War Start, 1966 Xingtai earthquake (8064 deaths) /
   Indira Gandhi become the first female Prime Minister of India, 1966 flood of the Arno, Ronald Reagan became governor of California 

I implore guys to give your opinion. Nagae Iku (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, i think the upper one is good The0Quester (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply, and also helped to unify the size format of my collage. But I have a little advice for your collages,The white border of the picture of the flood in Italy was not cut cleanly, giving people an uncomfortable look.😊 Nagae Iku (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it would be best if the colleges would stay up until everyone either agrees to take them down or not. Arcadia16 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This goes for 1964 as well Arcadia16 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]