Talk:1966

message: 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)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rights 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Arthur Calwell]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Jimmy Wales]], co-founder 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  February 11th 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[UFO]]s over [[Michigan]] 

message: : 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: 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)
thread_title: Population 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

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) 07:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Shōwa 41" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Showa 41" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: US-centric collage

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmmm, i think the upper one is good The0Quester (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Collage discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: This goes for 1964 as well Arcadia16 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage discussion 2