Talk:1997

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 13:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "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)" huh? but this no 165.161.18.224 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

International Year of the Reef?
The first sentence of this article indicates that 1997 "was designated the international year of the Reef". This is a prime example of the passive voice hiding a lack of information. Who designated this? What does it mean? Is this reef as in Coral Reef? -- Creidieki 05:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you could have tried Googling for the term - first hit is an article on the World Bank webpages, stating The year 1997 is designated the International Year of the Reef (IYOR) worldwide by a group of non-governmental organizations and institutions. This effort was endorsed by the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), an international partnership of 75 nations seeking to implement Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, the Action Program adopted by the Earth Summit in Rio de JaneiroAverage Earthman 08:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mobutu Sese Seko missing?
I think it's quite surprising that Mobutu was not in the list of deaths... -Michaël 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fictional
I've removed the "fictional" section. This appeared to be composed entirely of inappropriate in-universe references to fictional plot elements. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains numerous references to fictional events, and there is no reason to believe this topic should exclude them. How is presenting knowledge of fictional events occurring in pop culture 'inappropriate' for a web encyclopedia? Please cite relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Captain Tangent (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate for main year articles, which are for important international events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Needs more intro
As a huge fan of the year 1997, I feel that it needs more introduction/overview in the beginning.. just outlining what significants things happened.. i remember especially fir music there was quite alot of development and it was definitely in the pre-terrorism pre-millennium hype era.. is that not mentioned? Nrlight 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Masaru Ibuka
May i suggest adding Masaru Ibuka co founder of Sony Corporation to the death list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Ibuka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.246.34 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ok 165.161.18.224 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No mention of the 1997 Indonesian forest fires at all?
no mention of the greatest forest fires in recorded history? No mention of the 1997 indonesian forest fires at all?? Nunamiut (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

XKCD reference
What's wrong with this under the Fictional heading? It's a pop-culture reference just like the others. JimG520 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The Fictional section should not arbitrarily exclude web-based references to 1997. 24.87.109.208 (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree, have made the edit and had it removed. If no-one wants to put forward an argument in the talk section for excluding it, then how can folk justify repeatedly removing it? 94.2.57.161 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Table of Contents error?
The Table of Contents lists "Ongoing" as a section, but no such section exists. Also, the "Fictional" section does exist, but is not listed in the Table of Contents. I'm a novice at this stuff, and with my limited knowledge of Wikipedia's editting format, I couldn't see anything wrong. Could someone more knowledgeable than I take a look at this? Thanks. 24.87.109.208 (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the use of ,Template:C20YearInTopicX, Template:C20YearTOC, Template:C20YearTOCright.  ttonyb  (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tokaimura nuclear accident was in 1999, not 1997
Thanks. It's fixed now. Dawnseeker2000  20:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the books made by author was read it was okay I read it on kapolei at a graduation from the state of construction by island of the artist by a book in the 45 years to publish by tribune an news 2607:FB91:1BEF:9F59:AC39:C338:9A92:B1E5 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Non notable person added to "births" section
I recently removed Jamey Rodemeyer from the births section, but now see this edit has been reverted by an IP without an edit summary or explanation. While his suicide is a notable event, he does not have a bio and is not notable as an individual. This means the link currently in place is actually a redirect which is against guidelines for articles such as this. It goes without saying that I'll shortly be removing the material again, but I thought I open a discussion so the IP can perhaps explain their reasoning or so they can understand the issue here and realise their mistake.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * who? 165.161.18.224 (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about the person (off topic tag)
There is a long-standing convention in WP:YEARS that, for a birth or death listing, there must be a Wikipedia article about the person, not about his death, or about some other event. Such conventions can be overriden by consensus, but there is no evidence of any attempt to do so here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See above.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I already noted, after you made false accusations of "damaging" edits (false accusations Rubin, haven't we been here before??), where is this consensus captured please? Where is the guideline or policy which enables you to remove such entries while referring to them as "damage"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just while we're here, a thing about your edit summaries on this topic:
 * WP:YEARS project "guidelines" specify the article must be about the person. prove it.
 * revert undiscussed damage what is the "damage" here, isn't that kind of language more suitable for things that don't enhance the encyclopedia, like vandalism or rogue admin behaviour?
 * I've told you before about your misuse of Twinkle and your misleading and often actually false edit summaries, I think if we see any more examples than the dozen or so that I've now got, we'll need yet another trip to ANI to remove Twinkle from you and restrict your editing abilities more stringently, until such a time that your summaries are more reflective of your edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You've made it abundantly clear that you disagreed with Arthur's edit summary, but you're not even engaging the content of the edit. Where is the assumption of good faith? How are your comments here in any way "respectful and considerate"? You've latched onto one word and aggressively used it as the basis for two comments, four questions, a threat to go to ANI to remove tools, and a personal attack (up to your old tricks again) . That looks a lot like bullying to me. -- irn (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I have a collection of over a dozen diffs where Rubin has used false or misleading edit summaries, usually via the Twinkle tool, to facilitate edits that restore a preferred version of each page.  How is that "respectful and considerate"?  I have warned him before about this, so unfortunately the ongoing behavioural issues coupled with the abuse of a tool which is granted to trusted users only has been called into doubt.  Thanks for popping by Irn, you always seem to be here when Rubin's about to get further sanctioned.  As for "engaging with the content of the edit", I have fully engaged on at least two occasions I've asked for evidence of this "long-standing convention", yet we get nothing, no pointing to any guidelines, or essays, or even any consensus, no evidence that even such a consensus ever existed.  If you can't see that Irn, perhaps your good faith meter needs adjustment.  "Up to your old tricks" is absolutely 100% bang on the money and not a personal attack - why was Rubin de-sysopped?  For making unfounded claims.  What's happening here (yet again)?  Rubin's making unfounded claims.  To be clear, I have already told Rubin that continual abuse of Twinkle, continual fake edit summaries or misleading edit summaries will result in ANI.  This is not bullying, this is not bad faith, this is fact and something which will be acted upon if the poor behaviour continues.  If you're only interested on commenting on a tiny fraction of the problem, probably better you don't do it at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For that matter, why were you desysoped? I see no reason why that wouldn't be relevant in regard your failed edits.  As for "damage", I assumed your restoring the entry while deleting the image was a mistake, as you failed to provide an accurate edit summary covering the restoration.  IF you include that in a future attack on my editing style, you should be banned from ANI.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't for deliberately abusing my tools, that's for certain. Go look it up if you can, if you need help with that, please don't hesitate to drop Arbcom a line, they'd be delighted to hear from you again.  And what "failed edits"?  I make dozens of positive, encyclopedia-improving edits a day, and you?  I've got plenty of evidence on your "edit style" already, this is just the icing on the cake (and for what it's worth, it's nothing to do with "style", more to do with deliberate errors and misrepresentations in your edit summaries).  I won't be banned from ANI if I'm bringing legitimate concerns of a continual abuse of tools and continual misuse of edit summaries.  I've already warned you a couple of times, claiming "damage" where none exists is simply unacceptable, as are all your other quirky misuses.  Please don't do it again if you want to continue using these gifts.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your lack of civility bothers me. That's why I comment on it.
 * How is that "respectful and considerate"? You have an obligation to remain civil. What anyone else does does not change that. -- irn (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but you appear to be cherry-picking civility here, what Rubin (repeatedly) does goes without your mention, yet when I stand up for others in the face of his edit summary hostility and falsehoods, you appear from nowhere to chide me. I'm not really interested in being your whipping boy, and if you're not interested in applying your rebukes in a manner equitable to all, I'm doubly disinterested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rubin doesn't violate CIVIL the way you do. Any "edit summary hostility" of his pales in comparison to the way you treat other users. That said, even if it were comparable, that wouldn't make your behavior acceptable or my criticism of it any less valid.
 * And just as a side note, I don't know why it appears to you that I show up "out of nowhere" and "always seem to be here when Rubin's about to get further sanctioned." I address your lack of civility when I see it on my watchlist. It has nothing to do with Rubin. -- irn (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say Irn. I'm done with this conversation, it's not appropriately located, it's completely one-sided and it's not helping anyone progress or achieve anything, it's not benefitting our readers, Rubin still refuses to answer the points raised, his hostility towards new editors with his false or misleading edit summaries goes unmentioned (and he must know better by now, yet refuses to see that), and all the while you still refuse to see the long-term issues there too.  All in all, a waste of everyone's time.  P.S. I just "archived" a "civility" barnstar from my talkpage, so perhaps you need to think harder before carrying on picking me out as the bad guy.  Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

North Hollywood shootout
This has literally no significance outside the number of rounds fired. The consequences of the shootout are negligible and it has little-to-no long-standing significance outside the United States, where ironically shootouts occur daily. This has no place in a global synopsis of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks of engaging in a debate. Most events on this list have no "long-standing significance" outside the country they happened. The article makes it clear that it was an important event in US police history and had significant impact in the US. And jugding by the fact that detailed (and sometimes features) articles exist in a number of other languages, it seems that this shootout also reverberates outside the US. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:AC4B:FD1A:B9F9:B1B (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with TRM. This shootout has little interest and no consequences outside the US.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if true (international coverage shows otherwise), it is irrelevant. Being an international event/incident is not a requirement for inclusion. If it would be, these lists would be very empty. To make up one own policy and than to mass-remove dozens of entries, that's borderline vandalism, not constructive editing. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:98E0:E993:B7E5:D6BD (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This belongs in 1997 in the United States at best, and certainly not here, this event is completely irrelevant outside the microcosm of the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

While i agree it has no international significance, it did have a 'long-standing significance' on the US by directly contributing to a militarization of the police forces. Arming ordinary police officers with high powered weapons such as AR-15's firing 5.56×45mm NATO rounds and the like, which is standard loadout in Los Angeles and many other places in the US today. Shortly after the event it even led to some ordinary LA officers carrying military surplus M-16 rifles in their patrol vehicles, which is also not unusual anymore today across many places in the US. So in other words, this was no ordinary shootout due to being a contributing factor on the, perhaps excessive, armament of officers felt to this day. If that is notable enough for such a list is debatable but it had a long lasting effect as mentioned above. But i would not want to say if that alone makes it notable enough for an international year list like this. Just my two cents anyway, up to you lot to decide(taking the easy road that way, i know lol). 91.49.91.163 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Datadumps
The IP makes dozens of edits at a time. My experience is that about 20% of the additions are faulty to the extent of difficulty of verification, and (for births, at least) 80% require revision. If an experienced editor wants to confirm the edits, go ahead, but they should not remain just on the IP's word, even if in good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. And for the benefit of @Dimadick and other editors who may be wondering -- articles by year (say, just for example, 1960 through 2018) -- just as with DOTY articles/lists -- have limited, finite space. Inclusions must be based on a higher degree of notability than simply having an article on Wikipedia. Quis separabit?  22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, the deletions do not seem to have anything to do with notability. Several of the names seem to have more coverage in the press than the ones already on the page. For example, among those removed was theatrical, film, and television actor Dylan Riley Snyder (with several hits in his career), while several obscure sportspeople are included. This is a violation of Days of the year. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Dimadick: Who removed Dylan Riley Snyder? If it was me, sorry. If not, whatever. We all make mistakes. Restore it and remove the admittedly "obscure ones" you just referenced. If you have only found one objectionable removal, I don't think that's a bad statistic. Let's work together. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit?  00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Eclipses
See WT:YEARS for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dwayne Haskins
Dwayne Haskins's importance is disputed. I'm in favor of retaining the tag, but I haven't definitely come out in favor of deletion. seems to be in favor of retention, but his only argument, so far, is that "starting quarterbacks" are automatically notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's statistically a rare thing (only 32 at any given time) and receives a large amount of media coverage, so if you're going to tag him for "importance", then you should be through and have most of the list tagged for it as well. I also wasn't aware that more foreign language sources act as a qualifier for these sort of things, as I've never seen this mentioned in the MOS or in a discussion that lead to consensus (but if I'm wrong, correct me). And if so, are there any additional guidelines for athletes? Maybe they must win a notable award first and not simply be a starter? Because if so, then Haskins should still pass due to him being a 2018 Heisman finalist, winning a few other MVP/conference awards, and holding some Ohio State school records. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The remaining quasi-objective standard is international importance. Although there are objections, in my opinion, this should be measured by in-depth coverage of the person in multiple countries, before his/her death.  I quite agree that there are others who should be removed, but I'm not willing to fight over those.  I am willing to fight over removal of the importance tag without consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Few things. Where is it stated that "international importance" is required? In the MOS or a previous talk page discussion? And how is this actually determined, just by adding a few non-English sources? I just don't see why you are singling out a single person when the majority of this list isn't internationally important. You should be willing to enforce this on the entire page, else it just looks like you are singling out specific people either out of bias or laziness. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * CHr. Farley.jpg

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bella Thorne for Vogue 2019 03.png

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)


 * there is a discussion about the 1997 Collage at User_talk:4me689/collage_discussions  4me689  (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

August 1st 1997 history
Knowledge and wisdom 2601:800:8100:47A0:9C09:F0BF:5A31:BEBA (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Collage depreciation
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)