Latest comment: 7 May 20041 comment1 person in discussion
There is a discussion on my talk page on page layout. this dint tell me nothing
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--BozMo13:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply
It was indeed, Windows 98 was revolutionary (globally) and before Windows XP it was the most used OS. I personally think its date of release should be noted. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Latest comment: 16 June 20171 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1998. 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:
Latest comment: 1 October 20171 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1998. 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:
Latest comment: 18 February 20252 comments1 person in discussion
The collage used features a modern picture of the Google webpage. Would it be bad to replace that with an image of Google as it appeared back in 1998? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
After Script error: No such module "age"., I've decided to reiterate my point and ping Template:Ping who created the collage back in 2023 and also previously introduced that anachronism a further back with this edit in order to replace a collage created by The ganymedian, who with this edit had tried to introduce File:1998 Events Collage.png, which was deleted from Commons for using a copyrighted image.
File:Google 1998.jpgIf the collage for 1998 is to include Google, then it should feature a picture like this, not one that shows a logo the company wouldn't have until 2015.