From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Years (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Issues dated 2004[edit]

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 add).

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 13:36, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


See Talk:June 4. --mav 06:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Why is there no disambiguation page for this? I was looking for 1999, the Japanese Nintendo game, but 1999 the Prince song is also a legitimate contender. WTF? -- 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

*October 31 - Nerf Arena Blast is released by Atari, Inc. and Visionary Media, Inc.[edit]

Why is that one on the list? The page for the game doesn't seem to warrant too much importance.


Isn't 1999 IMM (1 before 1000+1000) not MCMXCIX? I always thought it was. Just curious. 4myself4 (Come see my guestbook) 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be MIM, in analogy with XIX (twenty). LarRan 13:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
See Roman_numerals. The "subtraction" option only works 2 levels deep. So you can use I with V or X, but not with L, C, etc. But I agree that MIM is much cleaner. Presumably this is to avoid confusing options like MVMI (for 1996). XKL (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The Euro[edit]

On this page on January 1 it says the Euro was introduced. It also says the exact same thing on the year 2000. Im not sure which is correct so can somebody please clear this up?--WickedWitchoftheWest 10:20, 06 March 2007 (UTC)

4. July[edit]

Wikipedia overlink crisis[edit]

07-Jan-2008: Excessive wikilinking in articles during 2007 led to the "Wikipedia overlink crisis" (or megalink crisis), primarily by wikilinking every word in infoboxes or navboxes. For the yearly-articles, overlinking began with the "Year in other calendars" linking to 25 cultural calendars, as 25 * 2500 articles = 62_500 wikilinks, because the other-calendars infobox did not link to a 2nd-level overall "calendars" article which, only there, would link those 25 other-calendars. Deferring links into a sub-article would reduce the year-article links from 62500 back to one link per year, or only 2500 links total. Other navboxes also generated many wikilinks per article:

Repeating the monthly-calendars, plus the events-months navbox, added 518 (385+133) links per year, or almost 12 times the number of wikilinks used to switch to other year-topic articles (12 ~= 518/43 = 12.05). Again, if only those other navboxes could have been deferred to 2nd-level articles by linking as standard see-also entries, such as see: "Table of events by month" or as see calendar: "Common year starting on Friday". Such links under the see-also section would propagate 2 total links, not 518.

The Wikipedia page-link database(s) are not always 100% in sync with current editing; however, clicking on "What links here" attempts to update page-link data about cross-references (or concordance) between linked wiki pages. For example, if an infobox template were changed to not link "city"/"county" (etc.), unlinking 50 such words, across 2500 articles, would cause Wikipedia servers (after a few minutes) to pause a while to update page-link database(s), to drop those 50*2500 = 125,000 wikilinks (omitted) when displaying "What links here". Referring to the general problem as the megalink crisis reflects the widespread use of large navboxes in over 40,000 Wikipedia articles, thereby generating many millions of overlinked pages. Looking at the actual numbers might be quite shocking to some editors, unaware that 50 navbox links actually became over 125,000 link entries. However, the issue could be even more accurately described as the "multi-megalink crisis" of generated links. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

JFK Jr death date[edit]

this page says that John F Kennedy Jr died on July 16th, but it was definitely July 18th. It is my birthday, so i know 100% that it was all over the news that morning. BlackDragon2213 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He died on 16th; it is the death date, not the reporting date that is relevant. The media coverage of his disappearance and death lasted a lot longer than one day. Qzm (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does Burnout: Revenge redirect to this page?[edit]

Entering "Burnout: Revenge" WITH a colon redirects to the 1999 page. Without the colon it goes to the right spot. I don't know how to change that, but someone else surely does? MJuice 19:55, 04 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Some one redirected the target page here in September and a bot fixed the double redirect on the article with the colon. When the reversion was done on the article there was no double redirect for the bot to detect so the change to the colon article was not reverted. Keith D (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


I would like to request that some more births be added to this page. Hallpriest9 (Talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone in particular you think should be added? People have to be notable in their own right to be added, which for a year as recent as this will predominantly mean royalty and child actors. People who are merely family members of celebrities are not eligible. Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
They also have to meet the criteria in WP:RY. ttonyb (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Article should state the fact that 1999 was also the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century[edit]

Just because there was no year 0 according to the Gregorian Calendar doesn't mean that 2000 was also a part of the 20th century and 2nd millennium like 1999. Look at the front numbers, 1999 has a one in front like the rest of years of the 2nd millennium, while 2000 has a 2 in front like the years of the 3rd millennium. Also look at the next two numbers of the years. 1999 is already listed as the last year of the 1990s with 2000 beginning the 2000s. Plus New Years Eve 1999 going into New Years Day 2000 was celebrated worldwide as the end of the 2nd millennium and the start of the new one.-Bjoh249 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This argument has been discussed many times before (although apparently not in this article), and rejected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that many have also argued like me that 1999 was the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century, but one of the administrators rejected them. There is good cause to say the year 1999 was the last year of the 20th century and 21st century. I am going to start posting sources on my talk page that supports my argument. Bjoh249 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

1999 was the 99th year of the 20th century. That's why it ends in "99". How difficult is that to understand? (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Whenever I hear someone saying "there was no year 0", I get sick to my stomach... Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Day of six billion[edit]


  • It was recognized by a UN agency, not by the UN as a whole.
  • Our article notes that the agency reset the "actual" date back to June 1999, based on their own figures, and scientific agencies differ by up to a year, as noted in our article Day of Seven Billion.


  • It's a commemorative day. We list UN commemorative years, but how many days are commemorated each year? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To anyone that includes a DBZ episode in the fiction in 1999 section again[edit]

Please don't do it. The DBZ episode only broadcasted in 1999 (in America), it didn't take place in 1999 because DBZ doesn't follow the Anno Domini calendar that people use in real life. DBZ uses the Age calendar as shown in DB Xenoverse and even that calendar hasn't reached the year 1999 or at least that DBZ episode hasn't. (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)