Talk:1934

Year in topic
As per discussion at WikiProject_Years the year in topic paragraph is scheduled to be deleted as it largely duplicates the links in the top box, and is not consistent with other year. Any objections should be made on that page please --BozMo|talk 19:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why no mention of the 1934 coup de etat in America ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.73.203 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Alcatraz
The date of Alcatraz becoming a prison is inconsistent with the article, which mentions August 1934. As I have no idea which is correct, I'll leave the correction to someone who does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.104.78 (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Format
[See: Talk:1950. -Wikid77 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)]

Dust Bowl
Umm, the image shown for the dust bowl is an image from 1935. Is this ok? I know it illustrates a dust storm well, but it may be a good idea to find an image of the year. (Normally User:Stalefries) 134.39.51.9 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flash gordoncomic.jpg
Image:Flash gordoncomic.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flash gordoncomic.jpg
Image:Flash gordoncomic.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TheApolloMarquee.jpg
The image Image:TheApolloMarquee.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 Media copyright questions. --10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Noodleki
You are being disingenous. I have given a very specific explanation on the wikiproject:years page as I have told you many times. I was advised by another user to put it there as it is a more general problem than one pertaining to this page specifically, and so far, the response there has been positive. I even 'made the case' on your talk page, although I don't know if you've bothered to read it. So instead of this tedious obstructionism, why don't you explain why you disagree and think there is no problem. In fact, I'm just trying to implement the guidelines set out in Recent years, such as exclusion of minor sporting, weather events and so on, which equally applies to less recent history.Noodleki (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Can you explain your objection to the revert on the talk page?"
 * Yes: it is inappropriate when any editor, especially a newbie (and yes we were all newbies once) removes more than 5000 bytes of text without any specific explanation. You must seek consensus. I suggest making a case here piecemeal, citing what you find objectionable and why, and thus seek consensus from other editors. I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you are wrong in going about it as you have been doing. Bonne chance.  Quis separabit?  19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not being disingenuous. I really do not know what to tell you so I suggest you consult an administrator at WP:ANI and explain to him or her what is going on. Yours, Quis separabit?  22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus that Recent years applies to less recent history? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To rms, you have really crossed a line. After I bring this up on wikiproject:years page you tell me to discuss it on this talk page and now you have the audacity to tell me to discuss it on a different page. You have yet to voice your objection to my edits, you have yet to explain how this isn't in keeping with the guidelines for notability, you have instead only succeeded in pointless, tedious obstruction. I really have no idea in what motivates you to constantly come back here and revert, but I suggest you either explain, succintly, why you believe I am mistaken on whichever talk page you want (don't worry, I won't demand that you then transfer to a different page), or you stop this silly game. I have actually done a similar clean up on other year articles in the past where consensus was (eventually) reached.

To arglebargle - I can't see what grounds for a distinction there could possibly be. The idea is that objective standards of notability need to be met for inclusion. It is simply more of an issue in recent year articles, as everyone wants to add the events they think are important.Noodleki (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Why on earth should there be a difference!? How about making a cogent distinction between criteria for notable events in 2008 and 1954. A notable event is a notable event. An unnotable event is an unnotable event. It's as simple as that. The guidelines talk about recent years for reasons I've explained. It is perfectly obvious that it equally applies to other years as well. Do you need a consensus for this self evident fact? And what do you mean loosen up the guidelines? Just allow any event people feeling like puting on. Well my auntie just knitted a pair of stockings. They are green and two metres long and a work of art. I think I'll put that in straight away.Noodleki (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from the (IMNSHO, mistaken) idea that consistently applied and objective standards of notability are reasonable and possible, the grounds for distinction are simple -- 1934 is not a recent year, and one of the big questions is whether the WP:RY guideline is the appropriate set of objective standards to apply to article about older years. The WP:RY guideline was developed for articles about recent years.  I don't think sufficient consensus has been demonstrated for an application of the guideline to articles about years more than about 15 years ago.  (Consensus is not 2 or 3 people agreeing to try it on the WP:RY talk page -- that is just the start of trying to establish consensus.)  It might also be time to re-examine WP:RY in general as well -- the guideline could and might possibly do with some loosening up (although I could be wrong). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How one determines that an event is notable is the key, and it is not perfectly obvious that it applies to other years as well. The recent years guideline is a guideline for assessing notability for recent events, where the coverage of an event is likely to be dominated by primary sources such as news coverage, and reliable secondary sources with the analysis needed to determine long-term notability have yet to be written. As such, WP:RY contains relatively quick-and-dirty rules for assessing an event's notability based on location and the reaction of primary sources.  With the passage of time, it should become easier to find secondary sources that discuss the international impact and significance (or lack thereof) of events, so that hard-and-fast rules need not be used. For example, take the 1934 article that this is the talk page of.  The June 28 entry one would be hard-pressed to put in a "1934 in the US Department of the Interior" article.  The August 2 entry -- isn't that just a internal political matter of a single country? BTW, loosening up a notability guideline does not mean anything goes -- it's not a binary world.  Ridicule may be fun to write, but as a argumentation strategy, it's rather lacking, don't you think? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not really sure I've understood you. You are correct that it is easier to quantify the importance of events from the further past, but surely that just means the job is easier. For instance, the example you allude to, of Hitler becoming Chancellor is of great lasting historical significance, as opposed to the opening of a department for grazing. Hence, one event should be there, one should not. I have no idea what you mean by loosening up the guidelines. There are either guidelines or there are not. I cannot see what is so controversial about this.109.148.122.156 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got two different points, and I probably should have separated them into two different entries here. However, I hope that we can both agree that only sufficiently notable entries should be in articles like this -- the disagreement is about how do we determine what is notable? Point one : In the example I referred to, I was pointing out that an uncritical application of WP:RY to the events of 1934 could lead one to discard both of those entries, a patently wrong result.  WP:RY, while a decent enough guideline to the notability of events in recent years, isn't a good notability guideline for non-recent years.  WP:RY provides a tool for assessing the notability of recent events when proper secondary sources may not yet be available.  Right now, we really don't know to a sufficient degree which events of 2012 are going to be considered significant in 2027 -- WP:RY is a reasonable first guess, I suppose.  For 1934, I think that's enough time passed for secondary sources to be used -- the GNG is more appropriate here than WP:RY. Point two (a minor point in my view) : I have a strong feeling that the current version of WP:RY may be too strict, and needs to be loosened up slightly, but I haven't been able to formulate a consistent proposal in my head for a slightly looser alternative.  I suppose my point two is more an observation that I need to develop further, and until I do so, I'm staying out of that argument.  -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's cut to the chase.'Every' event on the US page has been put into the main page. So the question is this. Is that conducive to a fair, unbiased, objective selection or is it not. Should it be okay to, for instance, insert the entire contents of the uk or norway or france article in, or the article on the year in sports or movies? Or do we limit those events to the ones which are genuinely notable. Surely, but surely this should be a 'no-brainer'. Surely this has got to be the most self-evidently obvious point that shouldn't even need saying.

So the question is, do you agree with this, or do you maintain, that in fact the entire u.s article does deserve to be here and if that is the case would you kindly justify that viewpoint using things like common sense.Noodleki (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why such anger? And, why such anger directed at me?   I certainly don't think that the entire contents of the US article, or for that matter a majority, belong in this article, and I'd really like to know where you seem to have got the idea that I would think that. Hopefully I will have some time in the next couple of days to look through this articles and make my recommendations about what should go.  Let us note, however, that such recommendations will NOT be based on the WP:RY guideline, but instead on general principles of notability.  Then, at that point, we can discuss individual items without your repeated bringing up the strawman of "excessive US items".  Perhaps the proper way to strike a balance for older year articles is not to delete notable US entries but instead to bring in notable entries from other regions of the world.  (Non-notable entries should, of course, be removed, with fire if necessary.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! So make your recommendations, please.Noodleki (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)