Talk:2006

message: insists on including the closing of CBGB as a significant event, arguing "". While the event undoubtedly had great cultural significance in the US, I don't think it's sufficiently international. Because  has edit-warred this content in, I haven't removed it, but at the very least, we would need some sources to the international significance of the event. -- Irn (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CBGB]] 

message: I do not believe Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, Lillian Asplund, and Wolfgang Přiklopil pass the criteria to be added to the deaths section. It is generally accepted that people only known for being a supercentenarian fail the criteria to be added. Does this apply for people who are only known for being the wife of someone else, or for being a survivor of the Titanic? Přiklopil doesn't even have his own article. ProjectHorizons (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. WP:RYD explicitly addresses this:  And if someone doesn't have their own article, they certainly don't meet the criteria. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable deaths 

message: I've cleared out a few images which cause the images to extend beyond the bottom of the month (or, in one case, year).  There is an IP cluster who has already added images to December deaths 3 times.  I need help, here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: The latter, by a wide margin.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[J Dilla]] vs. [[Don Knotts]] 

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: all three are contentious political topics that fall outside of the new bounds for Xinhua set less than a month ago. We do need a better source, it was ok when added but our assessment of Xinhua has changed dramatically. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not bonded to the issue but this just seems like a scrub of Xinhua. One was a trade route opening, the other had a reference from another source, and the Thailand topic pointed to an article that verbatim said the same thing. I didn't see anything contentious in the three points. Ifnord (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the change in reliability a scrub is appropriate, there is no reason to use Xinhua for these when multiple reliable sources have covered the issues. Are you really arguing that China-India border issues aren't contentious? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC result was that Xinhua is reliable for most subjects. This was partly based on the fact that almost no examples of factual inaccuracies could be found by participants in the RfC. There has to be a concrete reason to suspect that Xinhua might be unreliable for a given citation, or else it's considered reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would go check that result again, there are very few cases in which we can now use Xinhua. The closer disagreed with you, maybe you should drop it instead of trying to eternally re-litigate an RfC decision that didnt go your way?  Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can also look through the comments again, and specifically the discussions about whether there are actually any examples of Xinhua publishing false information. The closest example that was given was Xinhua publishing an estimate of the turnout for a demonstration that was given by the organizers, without attributing it to the organizers. That's a pretty minor problem, and I was honestly surprised by the fact that nothing more serious could be identified by any of the participants in the RfC. That's probably why the close noted consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for most subjects. The caveat about use for propaganda or disinformation is based on entirely theoretical concerns about what Xinhua might do, not what it has done. When evaluating whether to use Xinhua for a given subject, there should be concrete concerns about propaganda/disinformation before Xinhua is ruled out as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Getting back to the edit in question (), I don't think there's any doubt that Xinhua is reliable to report that Montenegro declared independence from Serbia, that a trade route between India and China was reopened on a certain date, and that the government of Thailand was overthrown by the military in 2006. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you agree on replacing them with generally reliable sources as a compromise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Xinhua is generally reliable in this context, as the RfC result states. I see no need to replace Xinhua here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The context for all three is different though, at the very least the Sino-Indian border dispute is definitely an area "where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation.” At the very least we need a better source for that statement. I’m curious, in what areas do you see the consensus on Xinhua barring their use? It seems you dont think it impacts them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In specific subjects in which there is clear evidence that they are being used for propaganda purposes. Only a few concerning instances were identified in the RfC (e.g., not attributing a crowd size estimate for a pro-China rally to the organizers). The mere fact that an issue concerns China is not evidence that Xinhua is being used for propaganda purposes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The standard is “may have a reason” not “has been conclusively proven” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: I am updating the death section of this article and splitting the months into their own separate parts is there anybody I missed 4me689 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death section update 

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) 02:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the 06' collage and what should be left out. making this talk sections cuz i don't know what to put on this collage
File:Al-Askari_Mosque_2006.jpg|option A 2006 al-Askari mosque bombing
File:2006_Olympics_Opening_Ceremony.jpg|option B 2006 Winter Olympics
File:JogjaEarthquake27Mei2006-2.jpg|option c 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake
File:Independent_montenegro.jpg|option d 2006 Montenegrin independence referendum
File:Mahim_train_blast.jpg|option e 2006 Mumbai train bombings
File:IAU-GA-2006-Pluto-Vote.jpg|option f IAU definition of planet aka the end of Pluto
File:Adjamé_garbage_devant_la_mairie.JPG|option h 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump
File:Typhoon_Xangsane_27_sept_2006.jpg|option i Typhoon Xangsane
feel free to add a subject, I wonder what  thinks about this, he's the person who makes the image collages of 2005, and 2008 - 2018. I also want to see what the regulars think, AKA , , , , and . also is there anything you would change on the other years collages. 4me689 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal website, Future Timeline, has various events listed for 2006. A few I'd consider for the collage: the launch of Twitter, North Korea's first nuclear test, Pluto (dwarf planet), the execution of Saddam Hussein. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that these are also good options. We did put Saddam H in the 2005 collage, so would we want him twice in a row? @Wjfox2005 @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his death was notable enough to be included in 2006 too. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think a picture of his execution is too graphic for this collage? @Wjfox2005 The ganymedian (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt any such picture exists on Wikipedia, but in any case, no need to include it. Just a portrait/profile view of him would be enough. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I will start on a draft of the potential collage @Wjfox2005 The ganymedian (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @Wjfox2005  @4me689  I am having trouble finding a twitter logo without a checkered background, should I use Jack Dorsey instead? The ganymedian (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this one okay? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Twitter_logo.svg Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Definitely B, D, E, F. I will look into events to see if I can find more potential options. @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

text: BDEFI Are good I think they cover a good level category representing sports/entertainment, politics, war, science, and weather/natural events respectively. I think each collage should include one of each of for each year. PaulRKil (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

text: In the list of candidates, Typhoon Xangsane should be replaced with Typhoon Durian, which caused over 1500 deaths and was the deadliest tropical cyclone of 2006, while the former only caused just 312 deaths. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Collage candidate images and topic suggestions 

message: Can someone please find a reliable source for the launch of the Wii? Cause it just seems weird to me that there is a photo of the Wii on the top of this page and yet its launch isn't listed in events. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be in the 2006 in video gaming. These events should NOT be included in the article outside of collage. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendo Wii 

message: At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts. Koopinator (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage depreciation 

message: Does anyone here think it's notable for 2006 alone? There were lots of cases in the past where individual video games were removed from year articles because they're not notable enough.  Also scroll up in this talk page to see people talking about if another thing video-game related, the Wii, belongs on this article or not. At least Wii was popular from the beginning, but Roblox wasn't that popular when it first came out. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You provide a good argument. I think someone with more experience should handle this as I was just reverting vandalism from recent changes and found your edit. ItsCheck (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @ItsCheck Wait, you're saying my edit is vandalism? Didn't you assume good faith in the description of your revert? 35.141.142.199 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I specified that your edit was good faith in my edit summary. I was reverting vandalism when I found your edit, that is all. ItsCheck (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok 35.141.142.199 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roblox? 

message: Roblox may be popular, but it wasn't popular when it was first released. It didn't reach peak popularity until the late 2010s. Does it belong here? 35.141.142.199 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC - February 12, 2024 

message: *Remove Roblox from this article. It's just a single game first of all, and second of all it wasn't that popular or significant for 2006 alone, as it didn't get popular until the 2010s. I was going to remove it by myself, but ItsCheck (talk) reverted my edit just because he thinks Roblox is popular. Popularity of a game doesn't mean it can be included directly on a year article, it better belongs on 2006 in video games instead. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses