Talk:1984

message: 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 13:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout years

message: I just reverted the removal of huge amounts of content from this page by an anon IP.  I checked a few and found that they should not be removed.  Any comments? - Tεxτurε 20:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of huge amount of content 

message: I feel there is absolutely no need to have names in the births section with no description, as this merely duplicates the category 1984 births, and wastes time for people wanting to look at the main year. I've pruned it, but only gently for now - so I've removed 17th placed archers from the last Olympics, but left actresses in major channel soap operas (although I hate soap operas). I've also not touched the Chinese and Korean singers, as I'd have no idea if they're famous or not. Average Earthman 19:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming the Births section 

message: I'm removing the calendar box ( template) since it's not needed (links to dates already exist) and it hurts the layout of the page. --Mihai 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar box 

message: Feel that browsing through the years there is a slight bias towards entertainment in terms of US performers, artists etc. Is Hulkmania a world event? How important was Michael Jackson burning his hair really? MitchellStirling 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither are. Also, Hulk (and all sport events) should go in 1984 in sports, likewise for Jackson (and all music events) in 1984 in music. This article mainly lists "world events". Although I'm not sure there's a strict definition for what this constitutes, the two examples you listed definitely don't qualify, feel free to remove/move similar content. --TM 12:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important sports and music events can be listed here too but these two don't sound important enough to me, but that is just my oppinion. Jeltz talk 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that things like the Olympics, the FIFA World Cup belong in these year summaries as well as events that surpass the importance of sport such as The Hillsborough Disaster. A list of Super Bowl winners, Rugby World Cup winner and FA cup Final's belong in the year in sport. Likewise the music in these summaries should be things like Sgt Pepper's or other large sellers or highly regarded albums or evernts like Woodstock. No offence to Kylie Minogue but details of her career belong in music not world events. Again just my thoughts. MitchellStirling 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The listing of Van Halen's album release (January 9) should be in Music, not the world event page. Mitchdxx (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a world event?

message: Folks, I've twice today reverted an edit noting the release of Air Jordan shoes. feel free to correct me but I don't see that the release of a shoe brand is a notable event on a worldwide stage - Peripitus (Talk) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm... while I would normally agree with you, I think the Air Jordan is probably one of the more notable shoe models, as far as a single "model" of shoe goes... - Adolphus79 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: shoes, what the heck is so important about shoes, I don't see any reason why it should get the same amount of attention as say, Iran and Iraq etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.156.187 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air Jordan]] shoes 

message: I was just wondering why the publication of a book (in this case Neuromancer) isn't a significant event (I added this to July and it was reverted).  Is the argument that there are too many books published in any given year?  It seems that some books are more significant than others.
jamesjbrownjr 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main year articles are not for listing publishings of books, film/video game releases, or sports events etc. There are separate articles created and devoted to list those events so the main year articles don't become too large and cluttered. For 1984, there is 1984 in literature where Neuromancer is already listed. --TM 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome.  Thanks for the help. jamesjbrownjr 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, shouldn't large publications, e.g. The Davinci Code, be listed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.156.187 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because they're not important international events. Jim Michael (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing of a book 

message: "February 9 - Disclosure of remarks by Jesse Jackson, considered anti-Semitic by some, hurt his presidential campaign."
CalendarWatcher, can you please explain how these are not weasel words?  Please read WP:WEASEL before replying.  Your reversion of my edits (without explanation or defense of your perspective) doesn't address my objection to the wording above.  76.24.10.35 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read WP:WEASEL?  I'm not being uncivil by using the term weasel words - it's a Wikipedia policy used to describe words such as those above.  Since this is also a biography of a living person, the burden is clearly on you to explain why "considered anti-Semitic by some" doesn't constitute weasel words.  Who are these "some"?  You removed my  tag without explanation.  The only agenda here is that the article be clear on who it is referring to.  76.24.10.35 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Weasel words]] 

message: Yes this "considered anti-Semitic by some" is considered weasel words and has already been removed.. I suggest closing this RFC. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment - [[WP:WEASEL]] 

message: Is the line on January 27 really needed? Maybe we should include every time he got the flu or all of his mistakes while rehearsing. It seems Wikipedia didn't use to accept these kind of trivia...--Fluence (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Jackson]]'s hair 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.templetonprize.org/bios_recent.html
** In 1984 on 2011-05-25 05:08:42, 404 Not Found
** In 1984 on 2011-06-07 03:45:19, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is Y Done. Updated to working link. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

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

message: Of course, I'm being subjective here, but still...
The vast majority of people listed under births are very minor media "celebrities", most of whom I've never heard of. Ate these people really notable enough to get a mention? And if so, are there really no 30 year olds in other fields (eg politics, science, etc) who are notable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.173.213.69 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: The link in the hatnote to 1984 (number) is not actually about the number. It redirects to the disambiguation page. Mywalnut (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatnote error

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 1984. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.americanambassadors.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Publications.article&articleid=44
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page.  Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eclipse]]s 

message: 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) 21:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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) 11:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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) 22:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage