Jump to content

Talk:1992

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drmies (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 28 April 2024 (Reverted edit by 14.189.56.136 (talk) to last version by Qwerfjkl (bot)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


George H. W. Bush

January 8 - President of the United States George Bush becomes ill on a visit in Japan and vomits on the Japanese Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi.

Should this event really be stated here? It may sound funny, but it appears to be somewhat inadequate for a list of main events of 1992. Your opinions? -- Cordyph

Agree delete comment--BozMo 13:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Events

"January" should be a third level headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.168.81.175 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly

Added the Khojaly massacre on February 25 - February 26 to this article. Information from: http://www.khojaly.org/ http://www.come.to/khojaly http://www.travel-images.com/az-xocali.html

Where are the births?

The births of 1992 are missing..............

Thanks for pointing that out, I've brought them back from an older version. --TM 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i dont see births, like the daughter of curt cobain, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.77.48 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can someone edit allie dimeco's birthday? it's supposed to be on june 12, 1992 instead of september 9, 1992. Juan luveyo 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but you don't have to ask on the talk page, in the future just take care of it youself. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The format of this article is different than all the other years

Individual years that have multiple events are bulleted rather than repeating the date.

What I mean is instead of having events done like this:

March 26 - event

March 26 - another event

It is done

March 26

-event

-another event

This may seem minor, but I have gone through all the years from 1950 and it looks a whole lot different. I think the format should be consistent throughout all the years.

See also / References

I would like you to add the song "MCMXCII" from the album (N)Utopia by the symphonic metal group Graveworm to this article.

why? /*Ryan Rix*/ (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The article for this particular year was heavily vandalized by this person: 141.150.19.22 Here you can see the damage he did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992&diff=87023052&oldid=87021706 I think that I.P. should be banned from wikipedia

No place for that anywhere , let alone wikipedia , an international website.:—Preceding unsigned comment added by King f22 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the November 30th events someone has added "and i like chocolate". I don't know how you guys can change it but please do.

Table of Contents position

Why is the table of contents at the bottom of the page? I'm not sure how to fix this. Sirconnorstack (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars are wrong have been fixed

The Calendars shown beside each month are wrong starting with February. 1992 is a leap year but here February does not have 29 days, skewing the rest of the calendar.98.27.14.177 (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like February was off, but the rest are fine. February is fixed now, though. Thanks, 2help (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
February is wrong right now and so is March and maybe even more months. Calle Widmann (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The calendars have been fixed. ttonyb (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

june 06 1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.86.199 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phones ringing off the hook

October 3 – After performing a song protesting alleged child abuse by the Catholic Church, Sinéad O'Connor rips up a photo of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live, causing huge controversy, leading the switchboards at NBC to ring off the hook.

Phones cant actually ring off their hook, this is an idiom, should it be here?--Billy Nair (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowl

Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate ways to spell 1992

There are several ways for spelling 1992. One is MCMXCII. Another kind of way of spelling 1992 is MCMLXXXXII.

Some people and companies choose MCMLXXXXII; others choose MCMXCII. Please clarify. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 19: original research?

Under the entry for Dec 19, it says unfounded suspicion. After reading the article linked as a reference, Im not sure the unfounded part is appropriate. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamekeeper7 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I've removed the word "unfounded". Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Quayle "potatoe" incident

BroadwayWest insists on including Dan Quayle correcting the spelling of the word "potato" as a significant event, arguing ""Small" events reveal as much about our culture as large. The "potatoe" incident received global attn, and highlighted cultural divns in the USA that prevail." I'm not sure what these cultural divisions are that you speak of, but as it stands in the article, the event does not mention them and is completely unsourced. Further, I don't see how these cultural divisions make the event relevant on an international scale - that is why does this belong in the 1992 article and not just the 1992 in the United States article? -- Irn (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1992. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gorrie

I don't know why this person has a Wikipedia article. Even if he deserves an article, I don't think he meets the slightly higher requirements for inclusion here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1992 presidential election

There are entirely too many events in regard the 1992 presidential election in the US. Included are entry and exit of major (and some minor) candidates, the first (New Hampshire) primary, when Clinton was predicted to win the nomination (remember, these are the same pundits who predicted (a different) Clinton to win the 2016 election), all three "presidential" debates, etc. Not all of these are (or should be) in even 1992 in the United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Miller image

I see no reason why Mac Miller's image should not appear in 1992#Births. The argument that it should not appear unless it appears in 2018#Deaths seems an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

See also WT:YEARS#Birth/Death images for a general discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many Americans

I'm wondering why recent contributors to this article think they are doing Wikipedia a service by adding more and more Americans to the Births and Deaths sections. Deb (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipses

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

Logan Lerman

Why does he deserve an image in the Births section? Doesn't seem that significant an actor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

There are four edits by Maxen Embry which I consider disputed.

  1. Removal of the image of Avan Jogia
  2. Addition of the image of Camille Kostek
  3. Removal of the entry for Paulina Gaitán
  4. Addition of the entry for Camille Kostek

#1 might be required by #2, and #2 requires #4, but there is no justification for #3. I consider #4 questionable, and #2 very questionable, as Camille's only notability seems to be being on the cover of a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Adding importance tags, for the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see #Way too many Americans above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kostek not only gets more pageviews than Gaitan (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=Paulina_Gait%C3%A1n%7CCamille_Kostek), her page is also more developed (C-class) compared to Gaitan's stub. Kostek is also on the cover of the iconic Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, and first ever winner of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model Search. Gaitan on the other hand is a bit part actress who starred in a web TV series in Mexico-- prime candidate for the importance tag.
If your issue is ~another American, try getting a notable non-American for the month. Don't shoe-horn someone just because she's from outside the US. You even raised the same point in out discussion in your talk page. SMH. Maxen Embry (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are usually considered, and in my opinion, should be considered irrelevant. Development of the page is irrelevant, although some have argued it should be relevant. And I disagree with you that the Sports Illustrated traits are adequate for article notability, not to mention the higher requirements for listing in a year article and the significantly higher requirements for having an image in a year article.
If you want to consider this an impasse, I'm willing to go to WP:3O. It doesn't seem likely that my opinion will change, although it's possible some references not yet in the article would lead me to consider her sufficiently notable. However, I'm not going to fight about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that invisible comments are considered disruptive per se if disputed, unless consensus is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Miss World 2010 seems an even better choice for an image; replaced Camille's image with hers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Washed up Miss World a decade ago vs. the current SI Swim cover model? SMH. Maxen Embry (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: You are increasingly showing signs of ownership on this article, especially on your last revert citing unidentified "violation of guidelines" and "errors" just so you can revert the article to the version you wanted it to. Maxen Embry (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxen Embry: My preferred version is still with Camille out entirely. However, there is strong consensus that invisible comments should be removed if challenged, unless consensus is established. There seems to be a general consensus that tags should not be removed while under discussion for the first time. Those are the guidelines you are rejecting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Then you should accelerate the process by soliciting third opinion on the discussion you started to remove a tag you put there in the first place. I have made my case, but you seem to disregard it and introduce an American has-been beauty queen for some reason just to, yet again, disregard Kostek's listing. Also, refer to Culpo's article for her label/profession, you can't just revert it because you feel that "this is just wrong". This has been extremely cumbersome because unfortunately an editor looks to have taken residence and ownership on a particular page. I'm done.Maxen Embry (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxen Embry: I've contradicted all your additions, and I've been dinged for putting in invisible comments for which I thought there was consensus. As for "fashion influencer", the sources we have only have her word for it. If it were in a reliable source, it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxen Embry: As you keep making different changes which I consider absurd or unjustified, there's no place for WP:3O to start. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: "Absurd..." to you. "Unjustified..." to you. If you think I'm wrong that you're being irrational because you have taken ownership of the page, then start a WP:3O.Maxen Embry (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Culpo: https://wwd.com/business-news/media/olivia-culpo-gigi-hadid-oscars-rampage-ads-10807975/
Kostek: https://www.si.com/swim-daily/2019/04/26/camille-kostek-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-cover-model-2019
https://people.com/style/camille-kostek-covers-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-as-a-rookie/ Maxen Embry (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxen Embry: You wrote: "If your issue is ~another American, try getting a notable non-American for the month. Don't shoe-horn someone just because she's from outside the US." Shoe-horn, no, but there is a case for positive action to address the problem of systemic bias. Deb (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: I am very much into affirmative action but that is not even my point. I was just throwing back what Arthur has said to me in his talk page about his dislike of me putting an image of a female to break the consecutive male images for the month for the sake of diversity. Also, affirmative action should not override notability, and again, Gaitan's credits offers very little compared to Kostek's. If he were to identify a non-American who was born on Februar and who is more notable than any individual already listed, it would be very welcome. Maxen Embry (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February birth listings

There are disagreements as to three points (I believe the others have been resolved):

  1. Should Paulina Gaitán be listed under February 19 births? (That is, does she have international notability?)
  2. Should Camille Kostek be listed under February 19 births? (That is, does she have international notability?)
  3. If point 2 is yes, which of Camille Kostek and Alexandria Mills have an image listed. (Both cannot be listed, as the images would then extend below the field). I think there is agreement that the status quo ante of Avan Jogia's image appearing is less preferred than either of the two choices here.

21:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion

  1. No objection to Paulina Gaitán staying.
  2. Camille Kostek should definitely be removed. Deb (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:
I removed this entry from the third opinion noticeboard because, well, there hasn't even been a second opinion yet. Also, whoever made the above post should sign his/her name. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add under births

Joc Pederson

2604:2000:E010:1100:B1A6:EE6E:B37D:15DA (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--2604:2000:E010:1100:C577:DCBB:5000:99A5 (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [🖉"Markel Brown International Stats". Basketball-Reference.com.
What is the international significance of these players? Deb (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

Under deaths, please add Australian cricket legend Bill O'Reilly for October.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:5575:A0C7:78C2:A6FB (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea Trick | Treat 04:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Keoghan

Adding his date of birth in the October 1992 birth section. 2001:8003:30A7:D301:847F:6CF4:8AB4:3D6C (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide a reliable source for this date of birth. Deb (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't match the images to the captions. Is the Lego man with his back to us something to do with Rodney King, and if so, what? Deb (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there a need for two separate images for the Breakup of Yugoslavia, especially since one of them is just a not-very-good map? Deb (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

Under births, for December 6, please add Malaysian politician Syed Saddiq. https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/sizing-syed-saddiq-012434169.html 2600:100C:A203:FD7F:81D1:70F4:A8EB:271F (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This person appears to be a mere MP, therefore not internationally notable and does not meet the criteria for inclusion in a Year article. Deb (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Terasail[✉️] 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protected edit request

For births, for March 6, please add Sam Bankman-Fried. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Meet-SBF-the-Bay-Area-born-crypto-mogul-at-the-17575495.php 208.127.190.114 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actualcpscm - Inline reference to reliable source must be included for all new entries. Deb (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deb! I apologise, that should have been done. However, I'm unsure why you removed the entry? The reliable source is given right above in the original request. I don't want to engage in edit warring, so I'm not gonna add it back for now; please clarify. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actualcpscm It's fine to restore it as long as you include a proper citation with it. Deb (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

Under births, for September 2, please add Argentine football player Emiliano Martinez. https://www.espn.com/soccer/player/_/id/158626/emiliano-martinez 2600:100C:A210:2BB2:8C15:85B:199E:1B02 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done casualdejekyll 13:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1992&oldid=1221140816"