|WikiProject Years||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Time||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Format
- 2 Holidays
- 3 Wasn't 1990 technically the last year of the 1980's?
- 4 2004 page layout years
- 5 Regional leaders
- 6 December
- 7 Can someone please put a picture or two in this article?
- 8 Year of the Mental Horse?
- 9 Contents
- 10 Danger of overlinking as 380 spam-links
- 11 Cold War
- 12 Superbowl
- 13 Walmart
- 14 1990
- 15 External links modified
Moved from article:
- January 1 - New Year's Day
- January 15 - Martin Luther King Junior Day
- February 2 - Groundhog Day
- February 14 - Valentine's Day
- February 19 - Presidents' Day
- March 17 - Saint Patrick's Day
- April 13 - Good Friday
- April 15 - Easter
- May 13 - Mother's Day
- May 28 - Memorial Day
- June 14 - Flag Day
- June 17 - Father's Day
- July 4 - Independence Day USA
- September 3 - Labor Day
- October 8 - Columbus Day
- October 31 - Halloween
- November 11 - Veteran's Day
- November 22 - Thanksgiving
- December 12 - Chanukah
- December 25 - Christmas
- December 31 - New Year's Eve
Holidays go on day pages, not on year pages. There would be many dozens of holidays on any single year page since every country has a list about as long as above. --mav 06:04, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wasn't 1990 technically the last year of the 1980's?
I know that isn't how folks typically think but, my understanding that the 80's went from 1981-1990. 1980 therefore was the last year of the 1970's. I would change it but the Thought Police keep changing everything I contribute back again. -- john mccommas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
2004 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 13:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
why do we keep repeating that this is the year 1990 on every line? And why the days of the week?
Right, are we going to list the change over of every regional governor (e.g. every single US state, every Australian state, etc. etc.), or not? I say not, so I've deleted the governors of Victoria. The anon IP that added in the first place just added it back. No comment or anything. I'm deleting it again because we haven't listed any other states (not even California automatically, and that would count as a world top ten economy on its own). Let me know if you disagree please. Average Earthman 16:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Regional issues such as that should not be on this international article. Such events should, where possible, be on national articles, such as 1990 in the United States. Qzm (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
December 6 - Pavlos Sidiropoulos, Greek Rock Singer/Songwriter was placed into the article please confirm the validity of this information Betacommand 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please put a picture or two in this article?
- Nope. Years typically don't have pictures put into them. No real reason to actually.--Wizardman 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- 26-June-2007: Okay, 7 weeks later, added 3 images (Leaning Tower of Pisa, Superdome and Exxon Valdez). I had added several hundred images to years 1500-1979, but stopped at 1980 due to fears of gripes about "new-fangled images" upsetting the vanity boxes in yearly articles. (And gripe they did.) We could have added thousands of relevant images (they are available & quick), but you won't believe how difficult the resistance has been, with people deleting all images in some years, or converting to massive PNG files that made yearly articles load 5 times slower, or reformatting image-links to put several large text-gaps in each article. It has been a tedious task: 20% information & 80% reformation. Anyway, thanks for supporting the illustrated years. -Wikid77 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is that right? I couldn't work it out from the Chinese zodiac page, but it looks a bit wrong to my untrained eye! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeeG (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, forgot to sign LeeG 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What the bloody hell happened? They look whacko futacko!
- -220.127.116.11 14-July-2007
- Please read other issues here, such as how about the first issue above (duh) about the Table of Contents. The compact TOC has since been converted to box-style after June 2007. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
06-Jan-2008: The monthly-calendar Template:Month3 propagates wikilinks to about 35 articles, for all weekdays, days, and weeks. When used 12 times in an article to cover 12 months, the effect overlinks to 380 wikilinks (or more), rather than linking by one wikilink to a full-calendar article (propagating only the 1 wikilink). For year-articles "1950-2008" the template was multi-linked 12 times per article, generating over 22,000 wikilinks, rather than the original 58 links to just single full-calendar articles. Although the usage has been reduced, Template:Month3 was becoming a major part of the "Wikipedia megalink crisis" which overlinks words such as "city" or "county" or "km" millions of times into the page-link database(s) across Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
A decade starts because of an event or change in culture for example 1990 was seen as a continuation of the 1980s instead of part 1 of the 90s 2000 is also a continuation of the 90s
80s music and fashion were still popular this year
- According to whom? A decade is a period of exactly ten years, not a fashion trend of whatever length it takes. Culture doesn't evolve in discrete 10-year blocks. So your definition is silly. What exact year did the 1320s begin? What about the 760s? The 1180s?Cromulant (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mathematically speaking, 1990 is still part of the 199th decade, which began in 1981, because the calendar started with the Year 1, not 0. Much like the 21st Century began in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is the last year of the "199th decade" AD (if the assumed 1st decade begins January 1, AD 1). It is also the FIRST year of the 1990s, which is a decade that overlaps the "199th decade." This other decade, the 1990s, begins the last year of the "199th decade" and includes the next nine years (the first nine years of the "200th decade." Not that anyone ever speaks this way.) tl;dr: 1990 is part of the 90s. Some say it's part of the 80s (you did not explicitly equate "the 199th decade" with "the 80s," so you are off the hook); this is asinine.Cromulant (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The article states that 1990 is often considered the final year of the Cold War era. How does that make sense when the Cold War ended in December of 1991? Shouldn't 1991 hold that distinction? MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This is about when a few friends walked into an oportos store and bought a meal which on the meal had the order number 1990 it was terrific the friends continuously called it out people who was eating there told us to shhhh but we kept going it was funny then worker got mad and just as we left we all screamed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatman103 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1990. 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/20140704014026/http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/546 to http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/546
- Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5J6iMja8s with https://web.archive.org/web/20121219024023/http://www.w3.org:80/Proposal on http://www.w3.org/Proposal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.