Talk:1996

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 13:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Quake's release

Wikipedia has September, but [2] has May—Trevor Caira 15:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The link redirects to a website selling automotive spark plugs. Serves me right for opening a link from nearly 16 years ago. MightyArms (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty

first sentence: designated the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty. But by who? The UN? Axezz 14:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

July 8 item concerning Israeli PM - source?

I note the item concerning the Isralei PM for July 8th. What's the source of this claim?

Aside from the source, I'm not sure that it is of major historical interest in the same way as other entries. The receipt of a report is not a major milestone. Further, the text appears to make an argument rather than simply reporting the event. Unless someone can defend it I think we should remove it. -Will Beback 05:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 19 HSBC Arena incident

127.5 Million dollar scoreboard? I'm a bit skeptical. Source, please.

March 19, Sarajevo

March 19 - Sarajevo becomes a united city again when Bosniak authorities take control of the last district held by Serbs.

I'm not entirely sure what this is referring to. The siege was declared officially over on Febuary 29, 1996. Bosniak should probably be Bosnian and Serbs should probably be VRS or similar. Any input is welcomed. Zetetic Apparatchik 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Pas (webcomic)

Please explain what you mean not supported by the article. It says 1996 establishments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.216.95 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did. That was not supported in the article. Only 1970s and 2001 were documented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at this one, I agree with Arthur:

You've linked to the wrong article; should be Faux Pas (webcomic) not faux pas.
The article itself does not say 1996, except in that categorisation which you added, without citing a source.[3] Instead it says 'late 1970s', and '2001'. Its not clear at all from the article when the comic went online.
The only sources for that article are the webcomic site itself, which does not qualify as a reliable source - see WP:SELFPUB, item 7 (its ok on the rest of the counts there)
The only claim on the website is that the copyright runs from 1996 to the present, not that the webcomic has been there all that time. In fact, checking at [4] back to 1997 shows that the webcomic was not there, it was a site used to sell artwork. From checking the archive the description changed from Faux Pas prints to Faux Pas online strips sometime between October 2000 and February 2001 (theres a missing page in the archive).

In short, not only is the specific, referenced, date missing from the article, it appears that adding it to the article wouldn't be supportable either. Bazzargh (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado man

My apologies for not catching it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen advises early divorce of Charles & Diana

As the divorce was finalized on 28th August 1996, surely this item should preside in December 1995 and not '96. Moved to 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.239.30 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should divorces be on main year articles? Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Births data dump

Davykamanzi: added hundreds of entries to the Births section, more than in any other year, and more pictures than in any other year (guideline is at most 2 per month, regardless of the space to be filled). I think the status quo ante of only about 30 notable births should be restored, and possibly a hundred or so more. I think many of those fail to meet even the minimal "importance" requirements of WP:WikiProject Years; if they do, the requirements need to be tightened, as the article is too long as it is. The editor stated that he went through the list (he didn't say what list), and removed 10s of the less notable ones. I don't doubt that, but there are still far too many. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that all those added are internationally notable. Every entry without a non-English article should be removed immediately, 17/18 years after their death and no other language has bothered to create an article is an extremely strong indication of no international notability. I would argue that in a comparatively recent year such as this even those with less than non-English 5 articles are almost certainly not sufficiently notable for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin and DerbyCountyinNZ: As we (Arthur Rubin and myself) had discussed on his talk page I explained to him that when I expanded the section using Category:1996 births I ignored and weeded out several tens of articles that I deemed undeserving of an entry, and we agreed that if, after going through the list (which you're also free to do DerbyCountyinNZ), he deems 10% or more of the articles don't have any kind of international notability (using AWB and User:Davykamanzi/sandbox/1996 births x, I counted 728 individuals, so 10% of that is rounded off to 73 articles), he will completely revert all the entries I added. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing @DerbyCountyinNZ: I don't think "international notability" is (or should be) limited to having non-English Wikipedia articles. If Usain Bolt was the person he is today (assuming he was born in 1996) but didn't have any non-English Wikipedia articles, he would still have massive international notability anyway. In fact, I could use Zendaya as an example instead of Bolt. Whether or not she had articles on non-English Wikipedias she would still merit an entry in this article because she's massively notable around the world. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be centralised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years as it pertains to all Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People who were born in 1996 are now adults, so they should be a lot of notable people who were born in 1996 listed in this article. They are a lot of people listed in the year 1995, the year before 1996 and 1997, the year after 1996, so why they aren't that much listed in 1996? It's not fair. MuppetHammer26II (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline/MOS, rather than what any project may prefer, is key here (where the two diverge). See WP:LISTPEOPLE. That said, I think it makes sense to limit this page to those individuals who have English wikipedia articles, even though that is more stringent an approach than generally used on lists (where otherwise having appropriate RS refs is another acceptable criterion). But if the entry has a wp article on the English wp, I'm at this point fine with inclusion. As to images, I think it appropriate to have a number of images that fill (but are no longer than) the right hand side of the listed entries. Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's not correct. The list guidelines provide some guidance as to what should and should not be in list articles, but the "data dump" list of Category:1996 births would be redundant to the category, and be unworkable. If you want to create an article "List of 1996 births", go ahead, but this is not that article. However, if you did that, I would nominate it for deletion as being redundant to the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arthur -- you're applying your own personal standards. As with your last deletion -- you just deleted the name of an athlete drafted in the first round from the highest international professional league of a major sport ... based on your own personal criteria that he is not internationally notable enough ... while our notability tests in any event go to coverage (and he has international coverage to boot). That heavy-handed inappropriate personal point of view editing. I suggest we stick with guidelines, not any one editor's personal "wouldn't it be great if I could have convinced the community this should be a guideline, but I didn't" approach. This article is full of embedded lists -- this is "that" article.

And as you know, I would think, the argument that a list is redundant to a category is one that has always been rejected -- they serve different purposes. That is a very clear case. It has been rejected time after time at AfD -- have you not seen the AfDs? Or read our guideline (again -- I'm pointing to a guideline, not a personal point of view as you are as to what you would like to be a guideline) WP:NOTDUP? Which states, inter alia, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. ". Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a general consensus that this article is covered by WikiProject Years "guidelines"; if you disagree, now would be the time to bring that up. If you as gree, you need to establish a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument potentially supports List of 1996 births, not adding to this article. Perhaps I would be wrong to suggest deletion of that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2015 (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:

6ix9ine in 2018.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2018 (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:

Kendjin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2018 (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:

6ix9ine July 2018 face.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2018 (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:

Lola Beltrán graffiti.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2019 (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) 22:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need the first image as there is already an image for the Olympics in Atlanta - choose the Games or the explosion (which caused minimal damage/injury, compared with many others during the year). Deb (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is a discussion about the 1996 Collage at User_talk:4me689/collage_discussions#1996 4me689 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to births, March 29

Wade Baldwin IV, American basketball player^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:391A:7A6E:2C77:1131 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

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:

Intelsat708.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2023 (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:

Dove Cameron Vogue - 4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly on the photomontage

@Deb @Nagae Iku @The0Quester

Dolly the Sheep does not belong on the photomontage. The animal was born in 1996, but the announcement for its creation was on 11 February 1997. Any thoughts? DementiaGaming (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Deb (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have some other ideas, like replacing the image for the Port Arthur massacre. A brick obelisk does not represent a mass shooting well enough for me.

I propse we remove the 1997 Central European flood to replace with this event to go on the 1997 collage, and replace the missing slot in 1996 with the Air Africa crash in January. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64

Why was the Nintendo 64 release removed from the events in this year? There was a source listed for it. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]^[2]

In fact, here they are. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Nintendo 64 Breaks Loose". IGN. September 26, 1996. Archived from the original on October 18, 2015. Retrieved November 12, 2015.
^ Kohler, Chris. "Nintendo 64 Came Out 20 Years Ago—Here's How I Felt About It then". Wired.

Collage

I don't know exactly how and when it was decided to include the re-release of a hit record in the US (which seems to be from the previous year in any case), but it's really not appropriate so I have commented out the collage pending discussion. Deb (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[2] "Nintendo 64 Breaks Loose". IGN. September 26, 1996. Archived from the original on October 18, 2015. Retrieved November 12, 2015.

[3] Kohler, Chris. "Nintendo 64 Came Out 20 Years Ago—Here's How I Felt About It then". Wired.

[1]

[1]

[2]