| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1986 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} |
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 |
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 13:48, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd agree with this as a move - looking at the Category:1986 births, there are a lot of people with articles born in this year already, if we were to list all of them then the list would become unwieldy, and dominate the article. Average Earthman 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
TheMidnighters reverted my edit of putting Sir Alex Ferguson's appointment as Manchester United manager. His explanation was that it was a non world event. Well first of all that is false. Manchester United have an estimated 80 million fans around the globe. citation needed Secondly it is no regular hire, he is still the manager of Manchester United 20 years later and he's been the most successful manager in the history of English football. Finally if his hiring isn't a 'world event' then neither is the Chicago Bears defeating the New England Patriots in the Superbowl of January 1986. Is a world event also considered when some serial killer gets convicted in November or December (I can't remember which month it was)? I'm going to put his hiring back up, please respond below if you disagree before reverting again. -- Tocino
- Manager of a team that has regularly been the richest football team in the world (Deloitte reports, google for them, I can't be bothered), success in the Champions League, popularity worldwide. I'd say that keeps it. Certainly more of a globally notable event than a very US-only sport such as American Football (how many non-Americans played in the 1986 superbowl?).
Average Earthman 12:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The
1986 article is mainly for global political or disastrous events with a few exceptions. For something like a notable hire, trade and other sports events, it can go in
1986 in sport or, for football specifically,
1986 in football (soccer), articles which were made to suit facts like this. I hope you would agree that even though his hiring is a world sporting event, it does not suit the purpose of the main 1986 list. What's the point of having those articles if nobody uses them for what they're made for? I've added the Ferguson hiring to both articles and think that both the hire and the Super Bowl results should be removed from this list. --
TM 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- To be fair Steaua Bucuresti winning the European Cup should be deleted if the other sporting news are. I will delete it shortly. Argentina winning the World Cup however that's a world event, so I will leave it be. --
Tocino 17:37, 10 July 2006
- I agree completely with the World Cup results staying, it being one of those exceptions. -- TM 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- To be fair Steaua Bucuresti winning the European Cup should be deleted if the other sporting news are. I will delete it shortly. Argentina winning the World Cup however that's a world event, so I will leave it be. --
Tocino 17:37, 10 July 2006
- The
1986 article is mainly for global political or disastrous events with a few exceptions. For something like a notable hire, trade and other sports events, it can go in
1986 in sport or, for football specifically,
1986 in football (soccer), articles which were made to suit facts like this. I hope you would agree that even though his hiring is a world sporting event, it does not suit the purpose of the main 1986 list. What's the point of having those articles if nobody uses them for what they're made for? I've added the Ferguson hiring to both articles and think that both the hire and the Super Bowl results should be removed from this list. --
TM 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- A manager being a appointed isn't an event of world importance, even if that team has millions of glory-hunting fans in many countries. It doesn't change anything in itself. It doesn't affect world events like a country electing a new leader or a war being started. Jim Michael ( talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Image:Marcos Flees!.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Picture in question has a more improved fair use rationale as of 15:57, March 14, 2008 ( PST). Hence, the articles (including this one) with the said picture will not be affected by its supposed deletion on Saturday, March 15, 2008. - iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 11:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted material from this year will be copyrighted for DECADES, possible even into the next century. 108.66.234.28 ( talk) 00:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, copyright laws are about 99% horseshit. Why the fuck not have a picture of Chernobyl?
Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The article's thumbnail is not appropriate. Please find a POSITIVE event that happened in 1986. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 22:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
How about you put the Chernobyl disaster as the thumbnail? Sausagea1000 ( talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
What do you even mean? Sausagea1000 ( talk) 15:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to put the Chernobyl disaster as the thumbnail Sausagea1000 ( talk) 19:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Look SummerPhD 2.0 where is your operator? Sausagea1000 ( talk) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
You are a bot. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 01:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The v2.0 at the end of his/her name. SummerPhD might be a third - party bot that is being used to commit vandalism on Wikipedia. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 02:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, can someone please put the Chernobyl disaster as the thumbnail? Sausagea1000 ( talk) 14:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, if everyone thinks that I am using a third-party app or browser, I am using Silk Browser. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 16:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The reason I want to change the article's thumbnail is because the thumbnail is of a negative event. I would like a positive event to be shown. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 16:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
OK OK OK! Just find a positive event that happened in 1986, and put it as the thumbnail! Sausagea1000 ( talk) 18:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The only reason I am viewing on a mobile device is because my computer is broken. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 20:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Meh. Ill just buy a new computer. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 01:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Guys where are you?( Sausagea1000 ( talk) 14:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Where on earth are you? Sausagea1000 ( talk) 01:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC) |
OK. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Where are you? Sausagea1000 ( talk) 07:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Who are you talking to? Why are you asking? I am not sure exactly what you are looking for. - GB fan 10:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Everyone. Now, get the admins to close the conversation. Sausagea1000 ( talk) 16:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Three editors have tried to explain why this should not be changed. An admin, GB fan, collapsed the discussion saying there was nothing to do here unless you have another image to discuss. You went ahead and tried to make the change again any way.
- Let me summarize: The consensus here is to NOT change the top photo (that you keep calling the "thumbnail"). If you still think it should be changed, you will probably want to start a request for comments. I kinda doubt you're going to convince anyone, but you can try. Other than that, we seem to be done here. - SummerPhD v2.0 04:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) ( talk) 23:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
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) 21:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
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) 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
What does this comment in the Deaths section mean?
- Please do not remove your image through quadrouple image yourself, non-notable people, fictional character or without Wikipedia articles to the lists. No red links, Please! Thanks!
I removed the comment marks to make the comment display. I am having trouble understanding "remove your image through quoadrouple image". And if this was vandalised from "please do not add", then why is there "yourself"? Does anyone think it is possible for anyone to add their own death to Wikipedia? JIP | Talk 00:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
why is there a line about a Polish singer that makes no sense? 2A02:1812:243B:A800:1057:2909:255B:70B1 ( talk) 17:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If people are in favor of a photo collage as seen from '87-2022, I would like to hear some consensus on thoughts about what images should be included in it. Thanks The ganymedian ( talk) 22:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ Jim Michael 2 Gonna post a rough draft of the collage. Feel free to give any ideas for replacing Iran-Contra, as I know that may be a domestic matter The ganymedian ( talk) 23:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)