Talk:1956

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 14:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who haven't found it already, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Survey. -- Smjg 10:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout years

message: I notice that there is an entry for "Eindhoven University of Technology is founded." both on June 15 of 1957 and unknown date in 1956, I don't know which is correct, but unless they're refering to different stages of the university's foundation, they can't both be. Draxar 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicated entry

message: Please change "tresspassing" to "trespassing" in the entry for January 8 (spelling).
PureFlaxOil (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 15 January 2013 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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) 19:11, 14 December 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 deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: @4me689 
I created the collage of 1956, but I replaced the Khan Yunis massacre with Typhoon Wanda (1956), which caused 5,000 deaths. This massacre was part of the Suez Crisis and did not deserve to occupy a spot in the collage. It is sufficient to mention it in the accompanying summary. Nagae Iku (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, this collage looks great, it's not too American Centric and it's perfect. 4me689 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too, but you should make it with the multiple image template by uploading cropped versions of the images already on Commons Marginataen (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  collage 

message: At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage depreciation