Jump to content

Talk:1977

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


Format

[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but I find the following way of indicating headings unintuitive:

A collection of work by JRR Tolkien, The Silmarillion is published posthumously by his son, Christopher.

Usually, a bullet is used for a listed item, not to indicate a heading. One more ordinary convention would rewrite the above as follows:

Arts and Entertainment

Books
A collection of work by JRR Tolkien, The Silmarillion is published posthumously by his son, Christopher.

Something like that, anyway.

By the way, I really don't see what interest there is in having lyrics from Clash songs on Wikipedia.  :-) Again, maybe it's just me... :-) --LMS

Two approaches:

  • single page factoid list of information contained on other pages (e.g., Nobel prize, academy awards) along with other summary information
  • just the summary information without links to academy awards, nobel prizes, etc.

It would get really cluttered when you add:

  • superbowl
  • world series
  • wimbledon (sp?)
  • nascar
  • golf (masters, ryder cup, etc)
  • grammys
  • tonys

I vote for summary information only and not all of the factoids that are contained in other lists.

Do this give us a feature list like?

'GREP page title "string"'

which includes one or more line is from a page within the currently being viewed page.

Selective include/partial include of pages may bog wiki down too much especially on a large scale.

As far as the clash 1977 song, just mentioning the album would be enough...see the page on the clash for real info.

Also, only 'significant' books/music should be included. That would be accomplished by 'popular' vote in many people reviewing/changing the page.

The bulleted format is just a test of style, I did try indenting the headers but that looked worse.

As for information, well, there should be enough on each year page to make it read sensibly and contain a link to the real meaty page on the particular subject.

What would be bad is if each year page just ends up looking like some boring page of stats that hold together as real English .

Finally, with regards to what is valid to make it onto each page, well, I'd say "did it occur in the year in question?" "yes" "include it!" If the page shows a bunch of eclectric stuff that isn't mainstream knowledge, great! Bring on the obscure factoids, the more the merrier.

Above all, these pages should be FUN, if it doesn't raise a smile whilst you're reading the Year in Review pages, then it aint doing its job. --Neeklamy

Obscure things should not be on year articles, nor should any article be 'fun'. This is an encyclopedia, a structured compilation of factual information. Articles such as this one are about the important world events of the year. If you want fun or trivia, you're in the wrong place, there are plenty of sites for that. Qzm (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Mac

[edit]

I'm confused. Fleetwood Mac are a band, not an individual artist. Can this be clarified? Mswake 05:14 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)

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 13:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

[edit]

Did the Royal Family write this page? How many entries do we need on Elizabeth II's visits to various countries? Sheesh.

WAVES disbanded

[edit]

This is noted at the end of the article as being disbanded, and the date as being "Undated." Earlier in the article, the very same event is dated as "June 30." This should be edited for the sake of clarity, and whichever one is false should be removed. I'm not exactly qualified to tell you which one is correct, so someone else who does know please do this. 69.7.104.4 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward Tentacles?

[edit]

Out of curiosity, how do we know that Squidward (a fictional character) was born in October of 1977? Emeriste (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters don't belong on years articles. I have removed him. Winston365 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are wrong

[edit]

Somehow the dates for this year are wrong. October 20, 1977 was a Thursday not Wednesday. Articles for Lynyrd Skynyrd's plane crash are labeled as Friday, October 21 1977[1]. Someone needs to check this. When I run "cal October 1977" as a Linux terminal command I get the correct date scheme which coincides as the 20th being a Thursday. Has someone miscalculated for leap-years?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fixed in the calendar here. Perhaps you're misreading the ISO Monday-start calendars. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
[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) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowl

[edit]

Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1977. 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) 16:38, 15 June 2017 (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) 20:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo without entry

[edit]

Anyone know why John Oliver's photo is included in this list, but his birthdate isn't actually mentioned? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the entry was removed for lack of a source but the photo was overlooked. I can do that. Deb (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2022 (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) 23:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mette Frederiksen

[edit]

For births, for November 19, please add Danish prime minister Frederiksen. https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/members/mette-frederiksen 2600:100C:A202:2DD7:DA7:8EA7:C23E:A4C6 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it was undone, please add the source listed above to the section. Here is another source to back it up. https://books.google.com/books?id=2tSPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT214&dq=mette+frederiksen+november+1977&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvjLm8sfT4AhWfAjQIHe88Bq8Q6AF6BAgMEAM 208.127.190.114 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

[edit]

For births, for August 5, please add David Chang. https://archive.org/details/currentbiography2010unse/page/99 2600:100C:A202:871A:81BF:8F4F:9B0:C981 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for noticing, happy editing! --Ferien (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2022 (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) 06:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit semi-protected

[edit]

For births, for December 16, please add Danish chef and restaurateur Rene Redzepi. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rene-Redzepi 208.127.190.114 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage discussion

[edit]

@Deb What is the reason for remove the collage this time? Still American-centric? Which piece of the puzzle do you find unsatisfactory? Nagae Iku (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one reason. Presley's death is already in the deaths section so it doesn't need to be in the collage as well. The Panama thing is doubtful, not a major world event, as is Star Wars - other important films were released that year. Your captions are all in the past tense, when they should be in the present. My question to you is, why didn't you attempt to obtain consensus for the collage before inserting it? Deb (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will communicate with other Wikipedians to replace these three puzzle pieces. Also, I'm not very confident in my English proficiency, so I have been using GPTchat to assist with translations during our conversation, I hope you can understand and forgive any grammar mistakes I make. Lastly, I haven't been creating collages and inserting them into articles for some time now because I've been busy with my math exams and visa. I have promised to reach a consensus in the discussion area before inserting any collages in the future. Nagae Iku (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then, here is my personal opinion on the three events you chose: The Torrijos-Carter Treaties do indeed seem less significant and can be replaced; Star Wars, is quite important and should not be replaced, as it was the highest-grossing film of 1977 and even the entire 1970s, and it created a widespread cultural phenomenon that continues to this day; Lastly, while there might not be a separate article on the death of Elvis Presley, similar cases like the deaths of Ho Chi Minh in 1969. Therefore, I believe that Elvis Presley's image should not be replaced either.
In summary, I think only the Torrijos-Carter Treaties should be replaced, and it could be substituted with the Ogaden War or the Granville rail disaster. Nagae Iku (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Deb (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(This is without bias) Star Wars should not be removed. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you understand how large of a cultural impact Star Wars had back then that still lasts to this day in all forms of media. The treaties should be the only one removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a collage suggestion
replace the death of Elvis Presley with the 1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake which was a earthquake in Iran that killed 584–665 people, you can use this picture, as for Star Wars I don't think we should replace that as it was a big cultural phenomenon I think Star Wars is one of the most influential movies of all time. 4me689 (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of deaths caused by 1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake did not exceed 1000, which is too few. I do not think it qualifies. Additionally, this Iran fault map contains many other serious earthquakes, which can create ambiguity. My suggestion is to replace the position of Star Wars with Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, and then replace the position of The Death of Elvis Presley with Star Wars. Nagae Iku (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a great idea 4me689 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think films should be included in collages. How would you decide whether Star Wars is more important than a Bollywood blockbuster? Deb (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone put this collage back despite this discussion not having come to a conclusion. Even changes for which there's consensus have not been made, so I have removed it again. Deb (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

[edit]

Add

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars was released on May 25th, 1977

[edit]

This event is on the day and month pages. Should it be included in the year as well? 143.55.129.73 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1977&oldid=1254560791"