Talk:1965

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1965 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Format

26-June-2007: The years 1900-1999 have a condensed Table of Contents since 28May07. See Talk:1950#Format (and "Talk:1950#Condensed TOC"). -Wikid77 22:05 26-June-2007

2004 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 14:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Countess of Wessex

She was born this year, and she married into the title, but "future Countess of Wessex" makes it look as though she is not currently Countss of Wessex, only slated to become. Is there an lternate wording? Maybe "after Countess of Wessex" or something like that?

Births and deaths

What happened with this yea article? Someone need to recover births and deaths.

Dorothy Dandridge's death is an event?

Why? She's already under "deaths"

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

HRH The Countess of Wessex visits Belfast (closer crop).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

Martin Lawrence.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]