Talk:1976

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page layout years[edit]

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 13:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush's drunk driving significant?[edit]

This event on September 4th not be worth mentioning, in the grand scheme of things. IMHO, it should be taken out. Something more important *must* have happened that day. Ovvldc 19:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I concur! Mindman1 00:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Births section[edit]

It was getting too long, so I've done some trimming. Since we have a category for births in 1976, we don't need to go listing all the people with articles born in 76, so I'd suggest we just list either those very famous nationally (i.e. All-Star Baseball players) or famous internationally (i.e. Hollywood A-listers). Average Earthman 19:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

July 3 - drought[edit]

Please clarify: Should this read there is CURRENTLY, i.e., as we read this, a drought, or there was a drought AT THE TIME? I would assume "at the time" and will so edit, unless someone corrects me (in which case I have a question about the relevance). Tahrlis 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London bombing - January[edit]

As per this BBC story, the IRA bombing was on the January 29, not 25, and it was in the West End, not East End, of London. --Jemiller226 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this[edit]

Has anyone got a reference for: March 26 - Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom sends the first royal e-mail. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.106.254 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK there is evidence - http://www.sat.lib.tx.us/Displays/it70.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.106.254 (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'76 graphic novel[edit]

I am unsure why this was removed, but I've since re-added it. I'd prefer to discuss the matter. As I understand it, terms likely to be searched for should be included. As the dab has been linked to the primary writer of the series (and the series is noted in the linked article), I am unsure of the reticence to add the entry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too trivial to have its own article, it's too trivial to include here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, there are literally millions of dab pages that list something likely to not have an article as of yet. However, that doesn't make the term unlikely to be searched for, and in this particular case, there is more than enough citation to verify that the term is is use, is useful, and is actually linked to the article for its creator (indeed, the term is used in the linked article as a written product of the user). Are you of the opinion that the term '76 is not a disambiguation term for 1976? Further are you of the opinion that the comic book '76 does not exist?
I eagerly await your reply. I would ask that, until you and I have finished discussing this matter that you hold off on reverting the entry out. That seems the civil thing to do. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, respectfully, you are the one edit-warring, with your self-serving plea to leave your entry until things are 'resolved': no, once again, as the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, the status quo ante is the default state and if challenged the editor MUST wait until resolution BEFORE making the change. That IS the actually civil thing to do as you very well should know.
As for your 'reasoning', given that you make the classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS error regarding completely unrelated pages and completely avoid either responding to my points or making a case that applies directly to this entry, you have no call to be talking about 'shaky reasoning' given the flimsiness of yours. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, and I am beginning to resent both your unfair characterization of my reasoned request to you as well as your tone. I am going to ask you to be a wee bit more polite, please. Being a jerk isn't going to get you anywhere with me.
First of all, it takes at least two to edit-war, and you've made a dandy job holding up your end. so maybe stop expecting me to suddenly receive a flash of insight from your edit summaries and actually discuss the matter. Secondly, the burden of proof has in fact been met; the subject matter exists in the linked page. As well, I went ahead and created the article for the comic (I'll add to it as the day progresses). Now, if you are still of the opinion that the title doesn't exist, or is somehow unimportant to be disambiguated or listed in this page, please feel free to seek an outside opinion. I am quite sure I am on level footing here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggested sputtering and being aggrieved are not substitutes for actual argument, and my characterisation of your actions--particularly regarding your unwillingness to follow normal and required editing practice on making changes--is accurate enough, and issuing orders based on your particular sense of entitlement isn't get to get you very far in general, not just with me. It certainly calls into question what, exactly is your hurry and fervour to see this included. I'm upholding standard practice and policy regarding entries (and there's even some suggestions that such trivia pop-culture entries as a class ought not to be on such pages, though I don't personally care very much either way. You, on the other hand, are edit-warring over changes that don't fit standard practice and policy regarding entries, so the fault lies much more on your side, I'm afraid, your self-serving attempts at equalising blame notwithstanding.
As for your claim regarding 'burden of proof': no, there is a link only because you created it just now--and all it is is a place-holder, empty of any content or evidence other than an {{underconstruction}} tag and created solely as a wiki-lawyering work-around to your problem. You seem to be going to some extra-ordinary lengths to include this trivia, and I have to wonder why. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was unpleasant. Sorry; I expect to interact with people a lot more pleasantly. I did create the article, because your sole argument seemed to be 'well, of no one created it, then it must not be too important, huh?', which is a logical fallacy. That I was able to create the article and expand it as we speak (with citations, of course) pretty much invalidate that reasoning. The comic book was interesting as a set-period piece, and that I could not find it in a wiki search meant that an article was warranted.
I had asked before if you were of the opinion that '76 ≠ 1976, or that the term was somehow unimportant to be disambiguated. You still haven't answered that, instead preferring to lob civility hand grenades. I am not going to play that game, CW; I suggest you do whatever you feel is necessary to find a happy place and respond out of it. While I respect the amount of edits you do to date-related articles, you have not done yourself credit through this interaction. If you wish to discuss the issue initially raised, we can do that, and I will interact with you. If you choose to make this a verbal punching match, be advised that it will go poorly for you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to start a Thing, here, and did try to derail all the unpleasant. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with CW that redlinks should typically not be added to disambiguation pages, especially date pages, but now that the article exists (nice work on it as well, Arcayne) I gather this dispute is resolved? –xeno (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to be fair Arcayne, you know as well as I that the process is BRD, not BRRD. You were bold (rightious or not), he reverted (correctly or not), now you discuss. Not you revert back and then discuss. This does not excuse his beligerant and abusive name-calling and attitude, but there it is. Padillah (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of pounding the dead equine, I didn't add a redlink; I provided a link it to the writer's page, which is similar to what has been done hundreds if not thousands of times before in dab. Granted, I might have headed to discussion right away, but I had assumed good faith that CW had simply misunderstood why I had added the info. After the second revert, I attempted to engage him/her both here and at his/her usertalk page, without constructive reply. In fact, I think that the behavior and the contention that the subject of the article was of no import that had me off to see if that were true. Clearly, it isn't.
I'm prepared to write this all off as just getting off on the wrong foot, or CW coming into this in a bad mood or whatever, and I certainly don't think it would help matters to expect an apology (though it would be spiffy to get one). He didn't distinguish himself here, but everyone makes mistakes; its why every pencil comes complete with an eraser. The entry is in place, the article exists; let's just move on. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, my apologies. Consider my involvement over. Padillah (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Courtney?[edit]

February 28 – Mel Courtney wins the Nelson, New Zealand by-election after the death of Stanley Whitehead.

Is this really relevant? Who cares? The fact that he won after the death of Stanley Whitehead isn't even mentioned in Courtney's page. NOT IMPORTANT. Just one man's opinion. 204.101.237.192 (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 13, 2011 trim[edit]

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 12:37, April 13, 2011 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

Superbowl[edit]

Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file problems with File:Michelle Connor.jpg[edit]

File:Michelle Connor.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Michelle Connor.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and 7th year of the 1970s decade ...[edit]

Should read: and 6th year of the 1970's decade. Because we start to count at 1, not zero. The seventies began on January 1st, 1971. 1970 was the final year of the 60's. Etc. That's how counting works. You don't include zero as an amount. The amount of '1' is achieved as one moves away from zero. Zero itself is not a quantity, just a placeholder for the 10th place in a series. I hope this math makes sense.

I can't find the place on the edit page to correct '7th' to '6th.' But obviously 1976 is the 6th year of the 70's, not the 7th. And also obviously, any pages that incorrectly begin a decade a year before it actually began would also need to be corrected. Maybe somebody here has a script that can be applied globally to fix this unfortunate and silly math mistake.

Thanks, and good luck with your information project ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.29.18 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying would only be true if you referred to the decade as "the 197th Decade". The 197th Decade began on January 1st, 1971, but the 1970's began on January 1, 1970. It's the same as "The 1900's" vs. "The 20th Century". They are not quite the same thing. The year 1900 was part of the 1900's, but not part of the 20th Century. Also remember that a decade is any span of ten years, regardless of where you start counting off. March 4th, 1965 through March 3rd, 1975 is a decade, and the decade that spanned from January 1st, 1970 through December 31, 1979 is properly referred to as the 1970's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.64.93 (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1976. 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:

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) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 03:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 03:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 16:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 19:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bicentennial[edit]

If the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee isn't included in the 2022 article despite being celebrated in over a dozen countries, why should the domestic bicentennial be included here? Complete and utter double standards. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 03:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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) 19:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1976&oldid=1196171290"