Talk:1996

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 13:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout years

message: Wikipedia has September, but  has May—Trevor Caira 15:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The link redirects to a website selling automotive spark plugs. Serves me right for opening a link from nearly 16 years ago. MightyArms (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Quake's release 

message: first sentence: designated the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty. But by who? The UN?
Axezz 14:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty 

message: I note the item concerning the Isralei PM for July 8th.
What's the source of this claim?
:Aside from the source, I'm not sure that it is of major historical interest in the same way as other entries. The receipt of a report is not a major milestone. Further, the text appears to make an argument rather than simply reporting the event. Unless someone can defend it I think we should remove it.  -Will Beback 05:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 8 item concerning Israeli PM - source? 

message: * March 19 - Sarajevo becomes a united city again when Bosniak authorities take control of the last district held by Serbs.
I'm not entirely sure what this is referring to. The siege was declared officially over on Febuary 29, 1996. Bosniak should probably be Bosnian and Serbs should probably be VRS or similar. Any input is welcomed. Zetetic Apparatchik 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 19, Sarajevo 

message: My apologies for not catching it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornado man  

message: As the divorce was finalized on 28th August 1996, surely this item should preside in December 1995 and not '96. Moved to 1995.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.239.30 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should divorces be on main year articles? Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Elizabeth II|Queen]] advises early [[divorce]] of [[Charles, Prince of Wales|Charles]] & [[Diana, Princess of Wales|Diana]] 

message: added hundreds of entries to the Births section, more than in any other year, and more pictures than in any other year (guideline is at most 2 per month, regardless of the space to be filled).  I think the status quo ante of only about 30 notable births should be restored, and possibly a hundred or so more.  I think many of those fail to meet even the minimal "importance" requirements of WP:WikiProject Years; if they do, the requirements need to be tightened, as the article is too long as it is.  The editor stated that he went through the list (he didn't say what list), and removed 10s of the less notable ones.  I don't doubt that, but there are still far too many.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is extremely unlikely that all those added are internationally notable. Every entry without a non-English article should be removed immediately, 17/18 years after their death and no other language has bothered to create an article is an extremely strong indication of no international notability. I would argue that in a comparatively recent year such as this even those with less than non-English 5 articles are almost certainly not sufficiently notable for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 01:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  As we (Arthur Rubin and myself) had discussed on his talk page I explained to him that when I expanded the section using :Category:1996 births I ignored and weeded out several tens of articles that I deemed undeserving of an entry, and we agreed that if, after going through the list (which you're also free to do DerbyCountyinNZ), he deems 10% or more of the articles don't have any kind of international notability (using AWB and User:Davykamanzi/sandbox/1996 births x, I counted 728 individuals, so 10% of that is rounded off to 73 articles), he will completely revert all the entries I added. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

text: And one more thing  I don't think "international notability" is (or should be) limited to having non-English Wikipedia articles. If Usain Bolt was the person he is today (assuming he was born in 1996) but didn't have any non-English Wikipedia articles, he would still have massive international notability anyway. In fact, I could use Zendaya as an example instead of Bolt. Whether or not she had articles on non-English Wikipedias she would still merit an entry in this article because she's massively notable around the world. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion should be centralised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years as it pertains to all Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: And as you know, I would think, the argument that a list is redundant to a category is one that has always been rejected -- they serve different purposes.  That is a very clear case. It has been rejected time after time at AfD -- have you not seen the AfDs? Or read our guideline (again -- I'm pointing to a guideline, not a personal point of view as you are as to what you would like to be a guideline) WP:NOTDUP? Which states, inter alia, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. ". Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a general consensus that this article is covered by WikiProject Years "guidelines"; if you disagree, now would be the time to bring that up.  If you as gree, you need to establish a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Your argument potentially supports List of 1996 births, not adding to this article. Perhaps I would be wrong to suggest deletion of that article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Births [[data dump]] 

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) 04:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on 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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2018 (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) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eclipse]]s 

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) 03:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for 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: We don't need the first image as there is already an image for the Olympics in Atlanta - choose the Games or the explosion (which caused minimal damage/injury, compared with many others during the year). Deb (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

text: there is a discussion about the 1996 Collage at User_talk:4me689/collage_discussions#1996 4me689 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage thoughts 

message: *Wade Baldwin IV, American basketball player  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:391A:7A6E:2C77:1131 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add to births, March 29

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) 01:22, 11 February 2023 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion