Talk:1934

message: As per discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years the year in topic paragraph is scheduled to be deleted as it largely duplicates the links in the top box, and is not consistent with other year. Any objections should be made on that page please --BozMo|talk 19:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Year in topic

message: The date of Alcatraz becoming a prison is inconsistent with the article, which mentions August 1934. As I have no idea which is correct, I'll leave the correction to someone who does.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.104.78 (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcatraz 

message: [See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: Umm, the image shown for the dust bowl is an image from 1935. Is this ok? I know it illustrates a dust storm well, but it may be a good idea to find an image of the year. (Normally User:Stalefries) 134.39.51.9 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dust Bowl]] 

message: :Image:Flash gordoncomic.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Flash gordoncomic.jpg

message: :Image:Flash gordoncomic.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Flash gordoncomic.jpg

message: The image :Image:TheApolloMarquee.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. --10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:TheApolloMarquee.jpg

message: * "Can you explain your objection to the revert on the talk page?"
*** Yes: it is inappropriate when any editor, especially a newbie (and yes we were all newbies once) removes more than 5000 bytes of text without any specific explanation. You must seek consensus. I suggest making a case here piecemeal, citing what you find objectionable and why, and thus seek consensus from other editors. I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you are wrong in going about it as you have been doing. Bonne chance.  Quis separabit? 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not being disingenuous. I really do not know what to tell you so I suggest you consult an administrator at WP:ANI and explain to him or her what is going on. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a consensus that Wikipedia:Recent years applies to less recent history? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: To rms, you have really crossed a line. After I bring this up on wikiproject:years page you tell me to discuss it on this talk page and now you have the audacity to tell me to discuss it on a different page. You have yet to voice your objection to my edits, you have yet to explain how this isn't in keeping with the guidelines for notability, you have instead only succeeded in pointless, tedious obstruction. I really have no idea in what motivates you to constantly come back here and revert, but I suggest you either explain, succintly, why you believe I am mistaken on whichever talk page you want (don't worry, I won't demand that you then transfer to a different page), or you stop this silly game. I have actually done a similar clean up on other year articles in the past where consensus was (eventually) reached.
To arglebargle - I can't see what grounds for a distinction there could possibly be. The idea is that objective standards of notability need to be met for inclusion. It is simply more of an issue in recent year articles, as everyone wants to add the events they think are important.Noodleki (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Okay, let's cut to the chase.'Every' event on the US page has been put into the main page. So the question is this. Is that conducive to a fair, unbiased, objective selection or is it not. Should it be okay to, for instance, insert the entire contents of the uk or norway or france article in, or the article on the year in sports or movies? Or do we limit those events to the ones which are genuinely notable. Surely, but surely this should be a 'no-brainer'. Surely this has got to be the most self-evidently obvious point that shouldn't even need saying.
So the question is, do you agree with this, or do you maintain, that in fact the entire u.s article does deserve to be here and if that is the case would you kindly justify that viewpoint using things like common sense.Noodleki (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Noodleki