Talk:1986

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1986 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 13:48, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the births

I'd agree with this as a move - looking at the Category:1986 births, there are a lot of people with articles born in this year already, if we were to list all of them then the list would become unwieldy, and dominate the article. Average Earthman 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-world events

TheMidnighters reverted my edit of putting Sir Alex Ferguson's appointment as Manchester United manager. His explanation was that it was a non world event. Well first of all that is false. Manchester United have an estimated 80 million fans around the globe. ^{[citation needed]} Secondly it is no regular hire, he is still the manager of Manchester United 20 years later and he's been the most successful manager in the history of English football. Finally if his hiring isn't a 'world event' then neither is the Chicago Bears defeating the New England Patriots in the Superbowl of January 1986. Is a world event also considered when some serial killer gets convicted in November or December (I can't remember which month it was)? I'm going to put his hiring back up, please respond below if you disagree before reverting again. --Tocino

Manager of a team that has regularly been the richest football team in the world (Deloitte reports, google for them, I can't be bothered), success in the Champions League, popularity worldwide. I'd say that keeps it. Certainly more of a globally notable event than a very US-only sport such as American Football (how many non-Americans played in the 1986 superbowl?). Average Earthman 12:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1986 article is mainly for global political or disastrous events with a few exceptions. For something like a notable hire, trade and other sports events, it can go in 1986 in sport or, for football specifically, 1986 in football (soccer), articles which were made to suit facts like this. I hope you would agree that even though his hiring is a world sporting event, it does not suit the purpose of the main 1986 list. What's the point of having those articles if nobody uses them for what they're made for? I've added the Ferguson hiring to both articles and think that both the hire and the Super Bowl results should be removed from this list. --TM 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair Steaua Bucuresti winning the European Cup should be deleted if the other sporting news are. I will delete it shortly. Argentina winning the World Cup however that's a world event, so I will leave it be. --Tocino 17:37, 10 July 2006
    - I agree completely with the World Cup results staying, it being one of those exceptions. --TM 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A manager being a appointed isn't an event of world importance, even if that team has millions of glory-hunting fans in many countries. It doesn't change anything in itself. It doesn't affect world events like a country electing a new leader or a war being started. Jim Michael (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Marcos Flees!.jpg

Image:Marcos Flees!.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 ensure 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) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in question has a more improved fair use rationale as of 15:57, March 14, 2008 (PST). Hence, the articles (including this one) with the said picture will not be affected by its supposed deletion on Saturday, March 15, 2008. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 11:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg

The image Image:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material from this year will be copyrighted for DECADES, possible even into the next century. 108.66.234.28 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, copyright laws are about 99% horseshit. Why the fuck not have a picture of Chernobyl?

Superbowl

Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STS - 51L

question asked and answered, actual concern identified and user had been told what to do. Find an image that G fits in early January and bring it here for discussion. Until that happens nothing more to do here. - GB fan 02:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's thumbnail is not appropriate. Please find a POSITIVE event that happened in 1986. Sausagea1000 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have a thumbnail. Maybe you are viewing through some sort of third party App that automatically takes the first image on the page and uses it as a thumbnail? If so, I don't think that is an issue for us.

Anyway, the images are not there to be positive. They are there to show what happened that year. The Challenger disaster was in January so that puts it near the top. It isn't the worst event to get a picture. Many more people died a much nastier death in the Chernobyl disaster, which is also shown. Both events are very major ones for that year and including both images seems reasonable to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you put the Chernobyl disaster as the thumbnail? Sausagea1000 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenger explosion was a notable event that happened in January. As such, we put a photo of it near the top. (The designation "thumbnail" has nothing to do with where it is, only its size.) Whether the event was "positive" in your mind or not is immaterial. That you wish to minimize the Challenger deaths and offer the Chernobyl deaths in their place is... interesting, in a disturbing way. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you even mean? Sausagea1000 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change. You changed a valid image to one that does not exist so no image was showing. Please get consensus here before changing the image. The image of the Challenger explosion is appropriate for the location. - GB fan 16:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to put the Chernobyl disaster as the thumbnail Sausagea1000 (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Thumbnail" does not mean main image, top image or anything like that. It means the image is fairly small.

The Challenger explosion image is first because the explosion happened in January. The photo is next to January.

The Chernobyl disaster is further down next to "April" because the disaster happened in April. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look SummerPhD 2.0 where is your operator? Sausagea1000 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a person. I don't have an "operator". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bot. Sausagea1000 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think SummerPhDv2.0 is a bot? All bots on Wikipedia have bot in their user name. - GB fan 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The v2.0 at the end of his/her name. SummerPhD might be a third - party bot that is being used to commit vandalism on Wikipedia. Sausagea1000 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summer is a person. Originally named SummerPhD. Lost the password to the account and created a new account. Had a different name for a while and then renamed to SummerPhDv2.0, as this is the 2nd account. SummerPhDv2.0 is not doing vandalism. - GB fan 02:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, can someone please put the Chernobyl disaster as the thumbnail? Sausagea1000 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone can do anything you need to explain what you want better. There is an image of Chernobyl in the article in the appropriate time period of the year. It soup be inappropriate to put it near January as it happened in April. If you saw the Challenger picture somewhere attached to a blurb about this article that is not decided upon here. If you just want the Chernobyl picture at the top you will need to explain why it belongs at the top and the Challenger picture does not. - GB fan 15:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to back up what GB Fan is saying. There are at least three genuine human beings scratching their heads and trying to understand what it is that you want to achieve and why.

I don't understand why you think that the first image on the page is special. It really isn't. It not a thumbnail for the whole page. It is just the first image on the page. If you are using some sort of browser or app that treats the first image on a page as a thumbnail for that whole page then please understand that this is being done by the browser or app, not by Wikipedia, and so we can't do anything about that.

Please also understand that the event images are in chronological order and are meant to line up (approximately) with the month that the event happened so swapping them around would only mess things up. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if everyone thinks that I am using a third-party app or browser, I am using Silk Browser. Sausagea1000 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to think. I am trying to understand why you are calling the Challenger picture, the article thumbnail and why you want to change it to an image already used in the article. You don't seem to want to tell us. - GB fan 16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I want to change the article's thumbnail is because the thumbnail is of a negative event. I would like a positive event to be shown. Sausagea1000 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of Silk Browser, so I don't know if it is the cause of confusion here, but I am pretty certain that it is nothing to do with the article or with Wikipedia itself so I suggest we end this here. There is no point discussing the article's thumbnail when there is no thumbnail to discuss. The Challenger picture is just the first image on the page. That is all. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Daniel said, how is Chernobyl positive? The largest nuclear accident ever is not a positive event. - GB fan 17:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found silk browser, it is the native browser for the Amazon kindle fire. - GB fan 18:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK OK OK! Just find a positive event that happened in 1986, and put it as the thumbnail! Sausagea1000 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I finally figured out what you are talking about. You are probably in the mobile view of the article since you are on an Amazon kindle fire tablet. I just looked at the article in mobile view and see that the Challenger picture is the only one that shows when the article is first opened. It is above the lead for the article. In the actual article (non mobile version) the image is dosh aways, not at the top of the article. It is not intended as the image to denote the article. There must be some kind of coding in the mobile version that takes the first image and puts it at the top of the article above the lead. If you have a suggestion for an image of an event that happened in January to put at the top we can consider it. We are not going to just move some image from later in the year to the top because you don't like the one that is there. - GB fan 20:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I am viewing on a mobile device is because my computer is broken. Sausagea1000 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request for you. Open the article and then go all the way to the bottom and you should see a link to desktop. Click the link, it will take you to what we are seeing when we look at the article. This will show you went we are confused about what you are asking. - GB fan 21:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Ill just buy a new computer. Sausagea1000 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys where are you?( Sausagea1000 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth are you? Sausagea1000 (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sausagea1000 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you? Sausagea1000 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? Why are you asking? I am not sure exactly what you are looking for. - GB fan 10:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone. Now, get the admins to close the conversation. Sausagea1000 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors have tried to explain why this should not be changed. An admin, GB fan, collapsed the discussion saying there was nothing to do here unless you have another image to discuss. You went ahead and tried to make the change again any way.

Let me summarize: The consensus here is to NOT change the top photo (that you keep calling the "thumbnail"). If you still think it should be changed, you will probably want to start a request for comments. I kinda doubt you're going to convince anyone, but you can try. Other than that, we seem to be done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:37, 15 January 2017 (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:

Harold Macmillan number 10 official.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:41, 18 July 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:

Emilia Clarke-Emmys 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:10, 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:

Panagiotis Kanellopoulos.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Chernobyl Disaster in Ukrane.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2020 (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:

Amanda Bynes 2009.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2020 (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:

Drake at the Velvet Underground - 2017 (35986086223) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2020 (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:

Andrei Tarkovsky.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rafael de la fuente (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to understand comment

What does this comment in the Deaths section mean?

Please do not remove your image through quadrouple image yourself, non-notable people, fictional character or without Wikipedia articles to the lists. No red links, Please! Thanks!

I removed the comment marks to make the comment display. I am having trouble understanding "remove your image through quoadrouple image". And if this was vandalised from "please do not add", then why is there "yourself"? Does anyone think it is possible for anyone to add their own death to Wikipedia? JIP | Talk 00:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was added in this edit on 11 September 2017. JIP | Talk 12:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

why is there a line about a Polish singer that makes no sense? 2A02:1812:243B:A800:1057:2909:255B:70B1 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collage

If people are in favor of a photo collage as seen from '87-2022, I would like to hear some consensus on thoughts about what images should be included in it. Thanks The ganymedian (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael 2 Gonna post a rough draft of the collage. Feel free to give any ideas for replacing Iran-Contra, as I know that may be a domestic matter The ganymedian (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

LindsayLohanSundance.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AndrewTate-2023.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last year ago

Facebook 197.252.1.34 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]