Talk:1997

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 13:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)" huh? but this no 165.161.18.224 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout years

message: The first sentence of this article indicates that 1997 "was designated the international year of the Reef".  This is a prime example of the passive voice hiding a lack of information.  Who designated this?  What does it mean?  Is this reef as in Coral Reef?  -- Creidieki 05:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Year of the Reef? 

message: I think it's quite surprising that Mobutu was not in the list of deaths... -Michaël 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mobutu Sese Seko]] missing? 

message: I've removed the "fictional" section. This appeared to be composed entirely of inappropriate in-universe references to fictional plot elements. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia contains numerous references to fictional events, and there is no reason to believe this topic should exclude them. How is presenting knowledge of fictional events occurring in pop culture 'inappropriate' for a web encyclopedia? Please cite relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Captain Tangent (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inappropriate for main year articles, which are for important international events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional

message: As a huge fan of the year 1997, I feel that it needs more introduction/overview in the beginning.. just outlining what significants things happened.. i remember especially fir music there was quite alot of development and it was definitely in the pre-terrorism pre-millennium hype era.. is that not mentioned? Nrlight 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more intro

message: May i suggest adding Masaru Ibuka co founder of Sony Corporation to the death list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Ibuka  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.246.34 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok 165.161.18.224 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Masaru Ibuka]] 

message: no mention of the greatest forest fires in recorded history? No mention of the 1997 indonesian forest fires at all?? Nunamiut (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the [[1997 Indonesian forest fires]] at all? 

message: What's wrong with this under the Fictional heading?  It's a pop-culture reference just like the others.  JimG520 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Fictional section should not arbitrarily exclude web-based references to 1997. 24.87.109.208 (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I also agree, have made the edit and had it removed. If no-one wants to put forward an argument in the talk section for excluding it, then how can folk justify repeatedly removing it? 94.2.57.161 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  XKCD reference 

message: The Table of Contents lists "Ongoing" as a section, but no such section exists. Also, the "Fictional" section does exist, but is not listed in the Table of Contents. I'm a novice at this stuff, and with my limited knowledge of Wikipedia's editting format, I couldn't see anything wrong. Could someone more knowledgeable than I take a look at this? Thanks. 24.87.109.208 (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to do with the use of ,Template:C20YearInTopicX, Template:C20YearTOC, Template:C20YearTOCright.   ttonyb (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents error? 

message: Thanks. It's fixed now. Dawnseeker2000  20:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the books made by author was read it was okay I read it on kapolei at a graduation from the state of construction by island of the artist by a book in the 45 years to publish by tribune an news 2607:FB91:1BEF:9F59:AC39:C338:9A92:B1E5 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Tokaimura nuclear accident]] was in 1999, not 1997 

message: I recently removed Jamey Rodemeyer from the births section, but now see this edit has been reverted by an IP without an edit summary or explanation. While his suicide is a notable event, he does not have a bio and is not notable as an individual. This means the link currently in place is actually a redirect which is against guidelines for articles such as this. It goes without saying that I'll shortly be removing the material again, but I thought I open a discussion so the IP can perhaps explain their reasoning or so they can understand the issue here and realise their mistake.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: who? 165.161.18.224 (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non notable person added to "births" section 

message: This has literally no significance outside the number of rounds fired.  The consequences of the shootout are negligible and it has little-to-no long-standing significance outside the United States, where ironically shootouts occur daily.  This has no place in a global synopsis of the year.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks of engaging in a debate. Most events on this list have no "long-standing significance" outside the country they happened. The article makes it clear that it was an important event in US police history and had significant impact in the US. And jugding by the fact that detailed (and sometimes features) articles exist in a number of other languages, it seems that this shootout also reverberates outside the US. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:AC4B:FD1A:B9F9:B1B (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with TRM.  This shootout has little interest and no consequences outside the US.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if true (international coverage shows otherwise), it is irrelevant. Being an international event/incident is not a requirement for inclusion. If it would be, these lists would be very empty. To make up one own policy and than to mass-remove dozens of entries, that's borderline vandalism, not constructive editing. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:98E0:E993:B7E5:D6BD (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This belongs in 1997 in the United States at best, and certainly not here, this event is completely irrelevant outside the microcosm of the US.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[North Hollywood shootout]] 

message: The IP makes dozens of edits at a time.  My experience is that about 20% of the additions are faulty to the extent of difficulty of verification, and (for births, at least) 80% require revision.  If an experienced editor wants to confirm the edits, go ahead, but they should not remain just on the IP's word, even if in good faith. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. And for the benefit of @Dimadick and other editors who may be wondering -- articles by year (say, just for example, 1960 through 2018) -- just as with DOTY articles/lists -- have limited, finite space. Inclusions must be based on a higher degree of notability than simply having an article on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the deletions do not seem to have anything to do with notability. Several of the names seem to have more coverage in the press than the ones already on the page. For example, among those removed was theatrical, film, and television actor Dylan Riley Snyder (with several hits in his career), while several obscure sportspeople are included. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Days of the year. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Dimadick: Who removed Dylan Riley Snyder? If it was me, sorry. If not, whatever. We all make mistakes. Restore it and remove the admittedly "obscure ones" you just referenced. If you have only found one objectionable removal, I don't think that's a bad statistic. Let's work together. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Datadumps

message: See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page.  Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eclipse]]s 

message: Dwayne Haskins's importance is disputed.  I'm in favor of retaining the tag, but I haven't definitely come out in favor of deletion.   seems to be in favor of retention, but his only argument, so far, is that "starting quarterbacks" are automatically notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's statistically a rare thing (only 32 at any given time) and receives a large amount of media coverage, so if you're going to tag him for "importance", then you should be through and have most of the list tagged for it as well. I also wasn't aware that more foreign language sources act as a qualifier for these sort of things, as I've never seen this mentioned in the MOS or in a discussion that lead to consensus (but if I'm wrong, correct me). And if so, are there any additional guidelines for athletes? Maybe they must win a notable award first and not simply be a starter? Because if so, then Haskins should still pass due to him being a 2018 Heisman finalist, winning a few other MVP/conference awards, and holding some Ohio State school records. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The remaining quasi-objective standard is international importance.  Although there are objections, in my opinion, this should be measured by in-depth coverage of the person in multiple countries, before his/her death.  I quite agree that there are others who should be removed, but I'm not willing to fight over those.  I am willing to fight over removal of the importance tag without consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Few things. Where is it stated that "international importance" is required? In the MOS or a previous talk page discussion? And how is this actually determined, just by adding a few non-English sources? I just don't see why you are singling out a single person when the majority of this list isn't internationally important. You should be willing to enforce this on the entire page, else it just looks like you are singling out specific people either out of bias or laziness. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwayne Haskins  

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) 00:51, 12 March 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 speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Please let me know if anyone has any disagreements on the images included in the collage, and I will put it up for vote. Thanks The ganymedian (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a discussion about the 1997 Collage at User_talk:4me689/collage_discussions#1997 4me689 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage thoughts 

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) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Knowledge and wisdom 2601:800:8100:47A0:9C09:F0BF:5A31:BEBA (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 1st 1997 history 

message: At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage depreciation