Talk:1993

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1993 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page layout years

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 13:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Just wondering, do you think that we should have a section like "major events" at the top, containing a handful of the most important events of the year? — Braaropolis | Talk 05:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just saying, I don't think that is a good idea. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

Andrew Wiles

Do we really need all four milestones for Andrew Wiles and Fermat's last theorem on here (June 21, 22, 23, 24)? Can't we remove the lectures and just have the date of the solution on there? If there are no objections over the next few days, I'll remove the three lecture dates. --ParkerHiggins | Talk 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday for Crazy frog

Should we have a "birthday" listed for a fictional advertising character such as Crazy frog? I deleted it, but it was restored, and I don't feel like getting into a revert war. -- ArglebargleIV 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and removed it again. --TM 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby programming language

"February 24 - Yukihiro Matsumoto starts working on the Ruby programming language."

Is this really significant enough to belong on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.178.128 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and style

"June 8 – In Paris, Christian Didier breaks into the home of René Bousquet, banker and former Vichy France administrator, and shoots him dead."

It seems to me like the phrase "shoots him dead" could be reworded to, say, "shoots him to death". I've taken the liberty of changing it. --Robe 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "shoots him dead" is the correct wording; "shoots him to death" is not very good English. I've revert it. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
- In 1990s on 2011-05-25 05:52:56, 404 Not Found
- In 1990s on 2011-06-08 00:09:33, 404 Not Found
- In 1993 on 2011-06-08 01:55:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Surely it should be the 94th year of the 20th century 1,994th year of the Common Era and the 994th year of the 2nd millennium. as it is the 4th of the 1990s Thomas Rules 17:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense than usual. Please get consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, or some other appropriate group, before making edits which disagree with both the real world and consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there's no year zero in the Anno Domini / Common Era, so it's the 1993rd year of said era. For the same reason, while it's the 994th year of the 1000s and the 94th year of the 1900s, it's still the 993rd year of the second millennium and the 93rd year of the twentieth century. It would also be the 3rd year of the "200th decade" if we talked about that; it's just that that's not common usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowl

Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PartyNextDoor

Anyone think this Canadian rapper meets, even the minimal requirements, for a birth listing here? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only requirement is that he be notable, right? Because he does meet that. Unless there's something else I'm missing? -- irn (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think he meets the notability requirement. If this has previously been discussed and he was found notable, I'll withdraw the concern. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ieva Zasimauskaitė

The only ~~notable claim~~ claim of notability in her article is that she will represent Lithuania in Eurovision 2018, and possibly the unsourced claim that she toured the country after appearing on (the article says "winning", but that appears not to be in other language Wikipedias) a TV3 "project" (programme?). One of the statements made is that she was a "restaurant" singer for a number of years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRM is mistaken (as usual) about her actual status. She only (will) appear in 2018. She tried out in 2013 through 2017.

He also lied about the PROD. In spite of common sense, the fact that she (will be) in EuroVision 2018 is considered adequate notability. My only other argument is WP:BLP1E, and it's possible that there is something notable in one of the Latvian language sources, although it doesn't appear in Google translations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Moore photo

Was does my contribution of a photo of Bobby Moore keep getting removed? Bob3458 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Jay

I don't think he's internationally notable, and he may not even meet WP:ARTIST. I realize one of the references is apparently from the UK, and one of his labels is a (possibly local) record label in Sweden, but I really don't see very much notable about him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking.... I've added a couple more published sources about him, and will integrate them into the article in due course. Easily meets WP:MUSICBIO, in my opinion - an internationally-known performer with multiple CDs, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If the issue is one of notability for inclusion in the deaths section of this article, that might be understandable. But you added an (unwarranted) notability tag to the article itself - which is definitely not acceptable. Please clarify. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your added information convinced be that he qualifies as notable under WP:MUSICBIO, although not, apparently, under any of the individual points. But, for a year article, he is supposed to be internationally notable (used to be internationally significant), and I'm not convinced he qualifies there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough - I agree. Thanks for removing the tag from the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Ariana Grande Elle 2018.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Severo Ochoa 1959.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipses

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Ariana Grande Elle 2018.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Meghan Trainor in 2020.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't erase Bill Bixby

He may get angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collage thoughts

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) 22:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What terrible images, squeezed into an unsuitable space. And US-centric as usual. Deb (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the deaths tha happened this year?

Clicking the link just redirects to 1993 article. This isn't fine. Seaparrot876 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put Births and Deaths back to the old format please!

What was so bad about having lists of people born/ died for the year, alongside photos of some of the most famous ones, plus a quick description for each person? The new format is dreadful! 180.150.38.13 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]