|WikiProject Years||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
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 13:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
On April 14 you have the same event listed twice. You should delete one. But which one to keep? I added the first performance of smells like teen spirit and the release of nevermind by Nirvana HOD 09:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Generation for the year
Should we include the generation for the year, and if we should which generation was it? Generation Y or the internet generation? Mrmattkatt 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Note: Question is still not answered Mrmattkatt 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Jan 9 and Jun 9 seem to have the same event. Robin Patterson 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This was a recently added event for April 15, a TV show ended, I've added a wikilink but I'm not sure if it's notable enough to keep. Any thoughts? It has its own wikipedia article, but that doesn't always make it notable. JoeyETS 01:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Table of contents
I'm kinda new here but shouldn't the TOC be at the top. I don't really know how to fix it --Fukhed666 00:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Closest palindromic years?
- You are correct; I just came to the talk for this article just to mention that (999 and 1000 make good close examples as well). Eouw0o83hf 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
1000 is not a palindromic year, surely! I think you mean 1001?
File:Margot Fonteyn.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Margot Fonteyn.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.