Jump to content

Talk:1969

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


James May wasn't born in 1969?

[edit]

The page has James May as being born in 1969 whereas his page states he was born in 1963...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.193.76 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More needed

[edit]

The years project does not NEARLY capture the whole cultural impact of this year - it was the end of an era. Something more has to be said here.

Much too much American trivia

[edit]

Rose Bowl? Northern ireland fair enough (look what happened!) but who gives a damn about minor American Trivia in this year. That belongs on a specialist US page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.14.39 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout years

[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 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 14:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Somebody wrote that Micky Mantle announced his retirement "while eating a bag of poop." I've removed this until it has been confirmed. -Tom

Larry the Cable Guy

[edit]

February 1969 is linking to Larry-the-Cable-Guy, where it lists "Larry's" birth year as 1963 . Someone may want to correct that.

Monty Python's Flying Circus

[edit]

According to this page, Monty Python's Flying Circus originally aired October 5th. But according to this page, it originally aired September 7. Which one is real? --71.224.19.29 15:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Getback roof.jpg

[edit]

Image:Getback roof.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen break

[edit]

First release of the Amen Break :). 1969 was such an eventful year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.41.139 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup and organization

[edit]

I corrected several errors on Soviet Union spacecraft dates. However, these were only in January and probably continue onto the rest of the article as well. The problem is, many of the articles for the specified craft list no references, making it difficult to quickly verify the dates. If someone can scan through the article and make sure all dates are correct, and maybe find some sources for the individual articles on the craft, it would greatly improve the article. WM2 04:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Eye Cherry

[edit]

He's listed as a birth here, but his article states he was born in 1971. Which is right? -Scyrene (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.110.97 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th victim?

[edit]

Before cabman Monasterio, ETA have killed 2 people : José Pardines and Melitón Manzanas, both in 1968. Despite the deception to the contrary in current Spain, the baby girl Begoña Urroz was killed in 1960 by the DRIL, a Portuguese and Spaniard armed group opposed to Franco's ans Salazar's dictatorships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowl

[edit]

Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1969. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 01:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murchison meteorite

[edit]

The Murchison meteorite, September 28 is described as one of the most studied meteorites ever. "This specimen demonstrates that many organic compounds could have been delivered by early Solar System bodies and may have played a key role in life's origin." I propose it's included. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 15:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations required

[edit]

Per WP:DOYCITE, Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. A blue link to a Wikipedia article is not sufficient. Most project members are reverting new additions without direct sources on sight. Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref for Warnock. Schazjmd (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline needs to be heavily expanded for clarification because users will abuse it when they need to make a point or when good-faithed users are reverted and warned. And it says nothing about removing the current additions to all the year articles which have no sources on them as well which could confuse a newer editor not unlike us. This whole sourcing new content is a mess and extremely flawed that can certainly fall under WP:REPCITE. Elizium23, And There's also significant opposition to the policy itself and its application on that RFC you started, I think we should have a new broader discussion on the policy itself to see if the consensus has changed. And there's also needs to be a headline when users edit the year page because users that don't understand the policy will be reverted. I believe if the info added is not questionable and covered by reliable sources on the linked page, then the addition of citation for entries, especially the new ones that user like you tend to monitor, there's should be not need for redundant sources. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we can't depend on linked articles to verify information for us. We've always known this. Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your using the Wikipedia is not a reliable source policy wrong here in this situation Elizium23. That's for non-verified information that's just states the information on the linked page and is not verified by backing sources and That's not my argument here. My argument is how WP:DOYCITE is a redundant policy if the sources used on the linked page about the subject's death, birth, event or notable occupation around them. That revert dispute about the tag on Raphael Warnock should have never happened due to their being verified external sources from reliable news organizations on the special senate elections in Georgia and him winning. Here's the section on the article verifying his win in the election [1]. And WP:DOYCITE says nothing about updates to current entries on the page. This is one of the reason why that policy has to be expanded and clarified to avoid conflicts like this and we should have a new RFC discussion on WP:DOYCITE itself because like you said before, Consensus can change. I do support removing questionable info that is not clearly sourced and verified on the person's article itself, then WP:DOYCITE would make sense in that case. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-verified information such as the date of birth, which was 100% non-verified in the target article when you repeatedly added the same non-verified claim here. FDW777 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:FDW777, I wasn't the one that put that entry there in the first place. All I did was update the information now that he is the junior senator after defeating Kelly Loeffler and Elizium23 put a CN tag there after my edit, Implying there may have been a source needed for the updated information. That was the reason I reverted his edit. i'm not fully against WP:DOYCITE, but how it is applied and written.ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SomeBodyAnyBody05, this isn't the place to argue that you don't agree with WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE. The discussion that established that rule is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Archive_13#Exemption_from_WP:V. I'd suggest raising your objections at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, there is no way to walk back that rule now, because what we had prior to that consensus was an exception to WP:V I welcome editors to open a new RFC and attempt it, but you won't find any joy, because WP:V is policy and there are no more exemptions to be had. Elizium23 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23, I agree; I'm just suggesting a more appropriate venue for SomeBodyAnyBody05 to complain about it. The issue here is done. The DOB wasn't sourced on the BLP or in this article; now it is, in both places. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 22:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decriminalization of gay sex in Canada

[edit]

Gay sex was decriminalized June 27, 1969, in Canada, which I think is pretty important? Am I missing something or was this just not added for no particular reason, and can I then add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aromantic Frogge (talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a domestic event for 1969 in Canada. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that considered a domestic event, but then there's things such as "UCLA wins its third consecutive NCAA basketball championship by defeating Purdue University, 92 to 72." on this page that no-one outside of America has heard of? Canada decriminalising gay sex is a much more global event than a bunch of things on this page. 2A01:CB15:4C:6100:D95A:3054:2A6B:12C1 (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1969&oldid=1196058327"