Talk:1980s

The Link (KCLibrary (Old Site(?)) appears to send users to found-not-help (Yahoo Search). I believe the link has been moved here: (Newer Site(?)). 18:23, 11 Mar 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerSociopath (talk • contribs)

@User:Flyedit32: This list is useless and POV duplication of names included elsewhere in the article; the duplication is keeping more important people and information out of the article altogether; editors keep inserting irrelevant or WP:UNDUE names, in a way that is very difficult to check due to the lack of footnotes or explanation; the list adds 13kB to the article, that there frankly is not room for in an article that is already 155 kB long and could be expanded with other more useful material; it is POV to have lists of entertainers but not politicians, scientists, business tycoons etc; the list includes no relevant names not already included in their proper context above in the article and you have reintroduced all the WP:UNDUE names; and the list is of very poor quality. The list should either be deleted altogether or split to List of 1980s people. As far as I am aware, the list was added without consensus. In fact, the discussions in the archive indicate there is an emerging consensus against inclusion, see eg Talk:1980s/Archive 2#List Cruft; Talk:1980s/Archive 1#People; Talk:1980s/Archive 1#People section; and Talk:1980s/Archive 1#This article needs lots of work. The policy WP:ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". So please either demonstrate that there is consensus to include the list in this article, or agree to delete or split the list. My preference is to split the list to List of 1980s people, unless the notability of that list is disputed. James500 (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I have done the split and the list is now at List of 1980s people. Per WP:ONUS, that list should not be merged back into this article without consensus. James500 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

1860s, 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and even the 1990s article - all of have a "People" section. Every. Single. One. of those decades articles have this section. This is not a matter of perspective, or objectivity, or point-of-view, it's a matter of consistency, and fairness. I alone did not come up with this list. As a matter of fact I've barely added anything to it except for a couple photos. This list has been amassed by several editors, over many, many years - just like all the 'People' sections of all the decades articles that came before it. This isn't new, and it shouldn't be controversial or contested. It just is. And should remain to be. Size is not an issue, but if we think it can / should be trimmed some, I'm all for that. As a matter of fact, I am/was totally fine with it being split into its own article, but obviously that failed as well. So I believe it should be restored, but if needed, at the very least cut down to resolve many of the issues you state above. We can all work together on simplifying the section and making sure it's neutral and that every name is notable enough for inclusion. This can easily be worked on by the community to ensure it's not disputed. Thank you. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

All of those "People" sections should be broken up as well, for exactly the same reasons. Every. Single. One. I alone did not come up with the idea of scrapping those "People" sections. Those "People" sections have been controversial and repeatedly contested by several editors, over many, many years. If you look at the archives of the talk pages of the other decade articles there are similar complaints, from multiple editors, that the "People" sections need to be removed altogether. See for example Talk:1970s/Archive 1#"People section". WP:TOOBIG can make a split necessary. WP:OSE is not a conclusive argument for keeping content, as the content has to be good enough and important enough warrant inclusion on its own merits. It is clear to me that it never will be. The only approach that might work is a series of standalone lists that actually satisfy the list guidelines. Something like List of 1980s heads of state (or 1980s prime ministers) might satisfy those guidelines. The most these articles should include is a list of such standalone lists, not these "People" sections. James500 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there really a more useless list anywhere on Wikipedia? I think we'd be hard pushed to find one.

• What is it for? It appears as a massive wall of names in the middle of the article unexplained. Is the reader to guess why these people are here?
• What criteria is used to decide who should be included? I can think of a few other thousand people just as notable as, for example, Talia Shire. Can I add them?
• Why is it limited to actors, entertainers, musicians and athletes? Is no-one else of any note in the decade?
• Why does the "musicians" section list bands, which are not people? Can I add other things made up of people?
• Is it really attempting to list every notable person that ever lived during the decade?
• Why is it essentially a list of names that, if they were at all of note, already appear elsewhere in the article?
• Let's not even start on whether these lists represent a world view.
• Who are we imaging is going to read this pointless sea of blue?

The argument that every single other decade article has one is really a poor starting position. Other articles being rotten are not a reason for this one to be so too. These lists in most other decades are likely equally to be useless and should equally be removed or reformed.

And just to answer my own question, last one above. The answer is no-one. No-one is reading this list. No-one is using it to find out that Paul Newman was around (presumably) in 1980, same as Mötley Crüe. The only people reading it are editors looking to add their own favourites to the pointless pile of names. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to note that, since no-one has come forward to counter my objections noted above, I've been bold and removed this section. I do, however, appreciate attempts to suitably broaden its criteria. But otherwise, it's just gotten bigger, exactly as I said above it would. I would suggest that there was no consensus for placing this back in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

• Soda Stereo '84.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

• Cierre de campaña de Raúl Alfonsín en la Av. 9 de Julio - Llamado a elecciones - 1983.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

• Nakamori Akina in 1985.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The small section on video games is VERY American-centric and simplified, and falls into the pitfall (No pun intended) of "only Nintendo mattered" - and even from a Western perspective overlooks the pre-NES generation. The fact that microcomputers could play video games and how that effected other markets isn't mentioned in their section. That section needs a huge rewrite. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you volunteering for the rewrite? Dimadick (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)