Talk:1984

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Years, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Years. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] 'American' Interpretations

It continually defies our imaginations how you people in the US can totally surpass the gifts some of our writers have. What is it about you that you must improve and reinstate everything sublime? Do NOT try to interpret works of art, fiction, or song lyrics: you fall flat on your faces.

Good works of art are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INTERPRETED anyway. They're written precisely because their message is sublime. And then you come along with your interesting rather gifted minds and bless everything.

Please continue doing that in the future and assist subjective commentary where you find it and try thus to raise the level of sophistication of this rather awesome brainchild of a genius called Wikipedia.

Our thanks.

[edit] 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 13:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Something for BJAODN perhaps?

Friday, May 11, 1984 - A transit of Earth from Mars takes place; no one is there to observe it.

[edit] Removal of huge amount of content

I just reverted the removal of huge amounts of content from this page by an anon IP. I checked a few and found that they should not be removed. Any comments? - Tεxτurε 20:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming the births section

I feel there is absolutely no need to have names in the births section with no description, as this merely duplicates the category 1984 births, and wastes time for people wanting to look at the main year. I've pruned it, but only gently for now - so I've removed 17th placed archers from the last Olympics, but left actresses in major channel soap operas (although I hate soap operas). I've also not touched the Chinese and Korean singers, as I'd have no idea if they're famous or not. Average Earthman 19:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calendar box

I'm removing the calendar box ({{Year AG}} template) since it's not needed (links to dates already exist) and it hurts the layout of the page. --Mihai 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not a world event?

Feel that browsing through the years there is a slight bias towards entertainment in terms of US performers, artists etc. Is Hulkmania a world event? How important was Michael Jackson burning his hair really? MitchellStirling 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither are. Also, Hulk (and all sport events) should go in 1984 in sports, likewise for Jackson (and all music events) in 1984 in music. This article mainly lists "world events". Although I'm not sure there's a strict definition for what this constitutes, the two examples you listed definitely don't qualify, feel free to remove/move similar content. --TM 12:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The most important sports and music events can be listed here too but these two don't sound important enough to me, but that is just my oppinion. Jeltz talk 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that things like the Olympics, the FIFA World Cup belong in these year summaries as well as events that surpass the importance of sport such as The Hillsborough Disaster. A list of Super Bowl winners, Rugby World Cup winner and FA cup Final's belong in the year in sport. Likewise the music in these summaries should be things like Sgt Pepper's or other large sellers or highly regarded albums or evernts like Woodstock. No offence to Kylie Minogue but details of her career belong in music not world events. Again just my thoughts. MitchellStirling 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Jordan shoes

Folks, I've twice today reverted an edit noting the release of Air Jordan shoes. feel free to correct me but I don't see that the release of a shoe brand is a notable event on a worldwide stage - Peripitus (Talk) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm... while I would normally agree with you, I think the Air Jordan is probably one of the more notable shoe models, as far as a single "model" of shoe goes... - Adolphus79 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

shoes, what the heck is so important about shoes, I don't see any reason why it should get the same amount of attention as say, Iran and Iraq etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.156.187 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Birthday

Okay, before you guys revert this, i'd like to say that i'm very proud of my birthday.
Infact, every time my birthday comes around, i'm happy. RocketMaster

Why? Do you have some form of terminal disease or medical complaint that makes survival for another year a notable event to anyone other than yourself and immediate friends? Average Earthman 11:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he feels that he was the only reason that George Orwells prediction did not come true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.156.187 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Average Earthman, what the hell? Party-pooper. So immature. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You know what? Happy Birthday! It's my birth year too! Punkymonkey987 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing of a Book

I was just wondering why the publication of a book (in this case Neuromancer) isn't a significant event (I added this to July and it was reverted). Is the argument that there are too many books published in any given year? It seems that some books are more significant than others. jamesjbrownjr 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The main year articles are not for listing publishings of books, film/video game releases, or sports events etc. There are separate articles created and devoted to list those events so the main year articles don't become too large and cluttered. For 1984, there is 1984 in literature where Neuromancer is already listed. --TM 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for the help. jamesjbrownjr 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, shouldn't large publications, e.g. The Davinci Code, be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.156.187 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asgard

I am currently reading the Iron Heel, a Jack London dystopian novel. At page 193, there is the mention of Asgard, a fictional wonder city, that is completed. If there are any issues with this, please alert them to me. I found it a bit coincidential that year is mentioned in that particular novel, espicially since it was cited to be an influence of Nineteen Eighty Four