Talk:1977
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Format
Maybe it's just me, but I find the following way of indicating headings unintuitive:
- Artsmm,,
and Entertainment
- Book
- a song by TheClash; Lyrics1977
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)
Fleetwood Mac
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
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)
Elizabeth II
Did the Royal Family write this page? How many entries do we need on Elizabeth II's visits to various countries? Sheesh.
WAVES disbanded
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)
Squidward Tentacles?
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)
- Fictional characters don't belong on years articles. I have removed him. Winston365 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
