Talk:1964

message: 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 14:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout years

message: 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!
* http://www.un.int/cuba/Pages/cronologia1964-1966-ing.htm
** In 1964 on 2011-05-25 03:49:40, 404 Not Found
** In 1964 on 2011-06-06 12:52:23, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The entry:
Germany receives its 1,000,000,000,000,000,000th foreign worker. (September 10) is quite obviously either wrongly phrased or just plain wrong. In any case, it is not up to standard and I am removing it. 144.124.210.160 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: He should definitely get a picture in the births section. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the richest man in history and is still grabbing the number one spot briefly every so often. Why do other billionaires get a place in these articles such as Carlos Slim in 1940? Bezos is universally famous. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeff Bezos 

message: As well as having been installed without discussion, the collage contained this howler: "the New York World's Fair celebrated the 300th anniversary of New Amsterdam being taken by British forces under King James II." James II wasn't king in 1664 nor did he ever set foot on the American continent. Deb (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we've solved it, I think we can put it up now. DementiaGaming (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Collage removed again