This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents.
BroadwayWest insists on including the closing of CBGB as a significant event, arguing "CBGBs has a global reputation as the venue launched punk and the international careers of Blondie, The Ramones, Television, Talking Heads et al, and probably has greater cultural significance than, say, Aleksandër Moisiu University, Albania". While the event undoubtedly had great cultural significance in the US, I don't think it's sufficiently international. Because BroadwayWest has edit-warred this content in, I haven't removed it, but at the very least, we would need some sources to the international significance of the event. -- Irn (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. WP:RYD explicitly addresses this: Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement (e.g. oldest person in the world or last surviving person of [x]) do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion. And if someone doesn't have their own article, they certainly don't meet the criteria. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleared out a few images which cause the images to extend beyond the bottom of the month (or, in one case, year). There is an IP cluster who has already added images to December deaths 3 times. I need help, here. — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifnord: all three are contentious political topics that fall outside of the new bounds for Xinhua set less than a month ago. We do need a better source, it was ok when added but our assessment of Xinhua has changed dramatically. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bonded to the issue but this just seems like a scrub of Xinhua. One was a trade route opening, the other had a reference from another source, and the Thailand topic pointed to an article that verbatim said the same thing. I didn't see anything contentious in the three points. Ifnord (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the change in reliability a scrub is appropriate, there is no reason to use Xinhua for these when multiple reliable sources have covered the issues. Are you really arguing that China-India border issues aren't contentious? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC result was that Xinhua is reliable for most subjects. This was partly based on the fact that almost no examples of factual inaccuracies could be found by participants in the RfC. There has to be a concrete reason to suspect that Xinhua might be unreliable for a given citation, or else it's considered reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would go check that result again, there are very few cases in which we can now use Xinhua. The closer disagreed with you, maybe you should drop it instead of trying to eternally re-litigate an RfC decision that didnt go your way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. You can also look through the comments again, and specifically the discussions about whether there are actually any examples of Xinhua publishing false information. The closest example that was given was Xinhua publishing an estimate of the turnout for a demonstration that was given by the organizers, without attributing it to the organizers. That's a pretty minor problem, and I was honestly surprised by the fact that nothing more serious could be identified by any of the participants in the RfC. That's probably why the close noted consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for most subjects. The caveat about use for propaganda or disinformation is based on entirely theoretical concerns about what Xinhua might do, not what it has done. When evaluating whether to use Xinhua for a given subject, there should be concrete concerns about propaganda/disinformation before Xinhua is ruled out as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the edit in question ([1]), I don't think there's any doubt that Xinhua is reliable to report that Montenegro declared independence from Serbia, that a trade route between India and China was reopened on a certain date, and that the government of Thailand was overthrown by the military in 2006. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The context for all three is different though, at the very least the Sino-Indian border dispute is definitely an area "where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation.” At the very least we need a better source for that statement. I’m curious, in what areas do you see the consensus on Xinhua barring their use? It seems you dont think it impacts them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In specific subjects in which there is clear evidence that they are being used for propaganda purposes. Only a few concerning instances were identified in the RfC (e.g., not attributing a crowd size estimate for a pro-China rally to the organizers). The mere fact that an issue concerns China is not evidence that Xinhua is being used for propaganda purposes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating the death section of this article and splitting the months into their own separate parts is there anybody I missed 4me689 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the 06' collage and what should be left out. making this talk sections cuz i don't know what to put on this collage
My personal website, Future Timeline, has various events listed for 2006. A few I'd consider for the collage: the launch of Twitter, North Korea's first nuclear test, Pluto (dwarf planet), the execution of Saddam Hussein. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any such picture exists on Wikipedia, but in any case, no need to include it. Just a portrait/profile view of him would be enough. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDEFI Are good I think they cover a good level category representing sports/entertainment, politics, war, science, and weather/natural events respectively. I think each collage should include one of each of for each year. PaulRKil (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The ganymedian i think i change my mind, the Wii should definitely be on this collage, it is one of the most sold console ever and a revolution, i think you should remove twitter launch from the collage as it was a still unknown social network and it was not part of the notable events of that year Gennicyro4 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the topic on that page, as for the ping, if I don't use it, the topic I added may take a long time to catch people's attention. Nagae Iku (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you're right, I think twitter should also be replaced as it wasn't a major event of the year.I also changed my mind and I think the Wii should be on the collage. Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wanna do it. But after this period of editing, I started to feel fatigue and fear because I felt that no matter what I did, there would always be someone who was dissatisfied. Nagae Iku (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the 2006 collage is not depreciated, then I propose we replace Twitter with the Lebanon War. As discussed in 2001, adding software or websites are illogical, as they reached their peak popularity years after they were created instead of the year they were created. GTA 1907 should stay. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and as I said several times above I think the execution of Saddam Hussein and/or the Nintendo Wii should be in the collage too Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i'm Gennicyro4) I understand your point of view but i don't find it illogical, i think the Wii should be in this collage because its release was a highly anticipated event of the year, and it had an actual impact and importance from the day it was released. I think at least as i said many times the execution of Saddam Hussein should be in it and i don't understand why it is in the 2005 collage. But beside that i think the collage that The0Quester made is alright and It's no problem if we don't put it in Multifruit223 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wii was only the seventh-most popular video game console, that's why the Game Boy is not on the 1989 collage and the Xbox 360 isn't on the 2005 collage (or why the PS2 shouldn't be on the 2000 collage, for the second time) DementiaGaming (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The0Quester. This version of the collage is excellent, replacing all the controversial grids. It deserves to be included in the article. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this version of the collage. It is much better now. But i still think the Wii or Saddam Hussein execution should be in it as both are bigger events than FlightGol 1907. but if the others dosen't agree than the collage is fine as you did it Multifruit223 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please find a reliable source for the launch of the Wii? Cause it just seems weird to me that there is a photo of the Wii on the top of this page and yet its launch isn't listed in events. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here think it's notable for 2006 alone? There were lots of cases in the past where individual video games were removed from year articles because they're not notable enough. Also scroll up in this talk page to see people talking about if another thing video-game related, the Wii, belongs on this article or not. At least Wii was popular from the beginning, but Roblox wasn't that popular when it first came out. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You provide a good argument. I think someone with more experience should handle this as I was just reverting vandalism from recent changes and found your edit. ItsCheck (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Roblox from this article. It's just a single game first of all, and second of all it wasn't that popular or significant for 2006 alone, as it didn't get popular until the 2010s. I was going to remove it by myself, but ItsCheck (talk) reverted my edit just because he thinks Roblox is popular. Popularity of a game doesn't mean it can be included directly on a year article, it better belongs on 2006 in video games instead. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roblox can stay in the article. I'm no expert on year pages but for comparison Twitter (which was not so popular at first, but today has a comparable relevance to Roblox), as well as Microsoft Office 2007, and Google's acquisition of Youtube all make the cut in this article. Sure this page could be improved with less weight on trivia related to tech products, but Roblox is a pretty big deal and as a reader I thought it was interesting that it was introduced so early. Groceryheist (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry and impersonation make this discussion unconstructive.
Hello @Loriendrew. Please refrain from removing content without adequately explaining why. Roblox is a highly popular game, so please keep it on the article, even if it has no citation. Let someone with more experience add a citation. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaismagorm: It is exempt because IP 35 is an extremely mean editor who keeps personally attacking me and trying to damage my online reputation. He even created an account to humiliate me even more. Because Roblox is highly popular, it only makes sense for it to be on this article, even if there is no citation and it had little popularity the year it was made. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaismagorm Actually, it is. They were the one who removed Roblox a few months back. I reverted it and templated them, but they personally attacked me even though I was protecting Wikipedia against unexplained content removal. About a month ago, they started using my mistakes I made against me, even though my recent edits on my main account have been constructive without any errors. Their personal attacks have been going on for almost half a year now. This is just unacceptable. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsCheck the 2nd I think maybe a good solution for this, is if you find a good citation, and insert it. Also I do understand what you are saying about the IP, and from what I can tell there might have been some malicious intent behind them. But this still doesn't change how we need a citation. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
option A 2006 al-Askari mosque bombing
option B 2006 Winter Olympics
option c 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake
option e 2006 Mumbai train bombings
option f IAU definition of planet aka the end of Pluto
option h 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump
option i Typhoon Xangsane
The redirect 16 August 2006 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 15 § 16 August 2006 until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)