Talk:1962

Years Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oy. Jazz77, are you planning on adding every movie ever made to every year page, or just every John Wayne movie ever made? -- Zoe

Nope, just going for big movies. Eventually most of this could be moved to the year in film pages.. right now I'm just gathering info -jazz77

Not sure about Hatari might have a different tittle in French. But the two others are real classics. The 1963 is less obvious. -- Ericd

Hey, in the edit history, 199.246.2.11 deleted a big chunk of events from the first couple of months. Was this intentional? -Jazz77

Thanks for noticing that - Looking at all the edits I've made since the vandalism you would think I would notice something like that. But then I add events very fast from the day pages. --mav

no entry for 1962 in the united states?

Moved birth from article:

December 9 - Marcus Vasconcellos, engineer

Vanity. Lupo 11:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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 14:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

The text for November 14 used to say: The great and noble Barbara Gibson was born.

Wikipedia doesn't contain an article on said person, and a Google search produced numerous Barbara Gibsons, none of which seemed particularily noteworthy in the Wikipedia article. Adding the year or date of birth made no difference. So, instead of removing only the POV "great and noble", I removed the entire entry, which seems the logical thing to do. Aragorn2 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune/Pluto alignment

Moved from the article until the concern by 71.169.20.16 can be resolved:

February 2 - For the first time in 403 years, Neptune and Pluto align. <<what alignment? there is none by longitude, declination or right ascension.>>

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Fantasy 15

The correct date is the 10th according to marvel.com