Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

January 10

Yesterday, Koplimek (talk · contribs) regrouped the entries listed under January 10#Births to "reduc[e] multiple persons born on the same day under like year". Do other users think this is a good approach? I only ask, because personally I think it messes up the list(s) and makes the entries less readable. I believe it was only for this day that such an edit was made to, so would appreciate what other members of the project think about this. Jared Preston (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it helps. In year articles, it makes more sense, because the repeated area is larger, and would need to be Wikilinked for date formatting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's bad. It makes it confusing to edit and the format isn't clean. We've been over this before. It always strikes me as odd that an editor will see the need to do this, but to only one article. I guess that's better that the rare editor that starts doing it to all of them and it gets missed for a day and then is a real pain to undo. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, and thank you Mufka, for undoing the edits. Jared Preston (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

April Fools!

This is the closest discussion page to the On This Day part of the main page with recent posts, please move if inappropriate. April fools day is less than a month and a half away and a few people are discussing On This Day Here. Last year we were knocked for not having new OTD line items so hopefully some of you could help out with creating new ones!--Found5dollar (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

holidays and observances

This section is usually quite short, but finding it may involve scrolling down through the possibly long list of births and deaths. Is it worth moving this up either to the top of each day, or just before the 'births' section? Murray Langton (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See the recent discussion on this topic here. If you have more to add, continue here on this page. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New York Times link

The New York Times link in the External links section needed to be changed because they changed the way their site works. Note the difference between the old pages and the new ones:

• Old Link
• New Link

The template that controls the link is {{NYT On this day}}. I've updated it with the new link format. The content appears pretty much the same, but we should evaluate the content on the new pages and ensure that it meets the intention of the original links. The good part is the template is simpler because the pages are no longer created every day so the links should be more static. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

September 11 redirect

Shouldn't a search for September 11 be redirected to the attacks page? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a series of date articles and their naming format is as it is, a hatnote is sufficient for those looking for September 11 attacks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: List of holidays by month

As of now, there is no comprehensive list of holidays and observances grouped by month. I had actually started Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Holidays and observances as a "master list" to help with WP:OTD before being sidetracked (haven't been able to devote the time to it), but it occurred to me that it would work pretty well as an article. Would anyone here be interested in taking this on? howcheng {chat} 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it too redundant? There's a possibility of repetition between what is there listed already in each day of the year's article (e.g. January 1 also contains first Monday in January, etc.). There's also similar article in each of the month's article, such as Holidays in January, some of these sub-section are not very well-maintained.

How about the Christian feast days?

I think this way of listing holidays can be very extensive. Notice the List of holidays by country, they are already very extensive and redundant.

To me, I prefer the way they are listed right now. Maybe you could re-maintain the list of holidays that is there on each month's article? Or you could apply the table in those article?

--Rochelimit (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly for OTD purposes, grouping them by month would be extremely helpful. The individual DOY pages aren't as useful because they're too narrowly focused. One of them problems I've had dealing with OTD is not able to easily "look ahead" to holidays that are coming up, especially the moveable ones. There have been a few cases where I missed a holiday listing because it appeared earlier than last year. Case in point, aphelion for 2011. In 2010, it was on July 6, so I was removing it from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 6 and trying to figure out where to put it for 2011, and it turns out that was July 4 this year, so it ended up getting omitted. With a monthly view (that shows when the earliest an observance might take place), I would be able to anticipate upcoming items better. howcheng {chat} 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an "earliest" format in the current holidays&observances in each DOY, is it helpful?--Rochelimit (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is (and I used it when I started compiling that list), but it's inconsistently used. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually the one who proposed the "earliest" format in the H&O (Holidays and observances) section. I make a list of all known, solar only, holidays with "earliest" property, and so far, I think I manage to put most of the major holidays with this format into the H&O. I have everything compiled in this guideline, which I tried to introduce to wiki as the official rule for the H&O, highlighting on these "movable holidays". --Rochelimit (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sub-headings by century/decade

I very much like the look of this. It's a lot more useful and user-friendly than the standard single list, imo. Do we have consensus to implement it on the other 365 pages? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It creates a horrid scrolling mess. It's been discussed before and there's no need for it. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, what do you mean by "scrolling mess"? Can you point me to the previous discussion(s)? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That format makes the pages much longer (and your example only had one section done). It also creates a monstrous TOC. A couple of discussions [1], [2]. I know there are more in the archives, but I'm not finding them by keywords immediately. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 16:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition to External Links of Days - Technology History

I would like to add my archive of Technology History as external links to each day of the year. I run a website called Day in Tech History, with all the information from the show on it's own wiki page, found at Day in Tech History Project. I am constantly updating the site and have almost all 365 days worth of Technology History on the pages. It would be a great addition and reference to Wikipedia. Geekazine (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links, specifically "Links to be avoided" #4, and "Advertising and conflicts of interest". I think the guideline pretty clearly says not to do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So is the objection on the advertising on the page or something else? The promotion of the page would be no different than BBC's or the New York Times. If it's about the advertising, I was running tests on whether it was worth it. I can take them off.Geekazine (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the advertising on your site. I thought the links I provided above would be clear. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's about your site being essentially nothing more than your own personal list of what you think are notable events in the history of technology, and then using Wikipedia to promote your site. If you were a recognized authority on the history of technology, or your site was known to be authoritative (in which case there would almost certainly be an existing Wikipedia article about you or your site) it might be different (although even in this case, the self-promotion would still be troubling). If you're willing to contribute, how about if you add particularly notable events, i.e. those satisfying the criteria at Wikipedia:Days of the year, to the pages here? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not being harsh. I am trying to understand better. The information I have collected for this list is a detail of technology history. I have spent years putting together a "Niche" set of events. In all reality, by what you just said, if I was to have incorporated them onto Wikipedia's pages, 90% would have been removed. What you call self-promotion, I call genre-preservation. If I wanted self-promotion, I would have linked to my regular website, www.dayintechhistory.com. Once again, I'm trying to get an understanding. Maybe my pages just need a little time to mature. But for now, I have a better understanding.Geekazine (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Animals?

Should animals, even if notable, be included, or not? Jared Preston (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO no, they shouldn't be included. WP:DOY does say "births and deaths of people". But on the rare occasion that they've showed up I think most have looked the other way. Here is a previous discussion on the topic. I know there have been more discussions but I can't find them quickly. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Portal:History

Is up for FPOC. This is one of the highest (if not the highest) visibility portal on Wikipedia, I recommend commenting on it! Cheers, ResMar 23:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit notices for DOY pages

Many of the DOY pages have hidden comments about not adding folks without Wikipedia articles. Despite these comments, it's still not at all uncommon for users to add people without Wikipedia pages. An editnotice might be a more effective approach. Perhaps something like:

---

PLEASE READ - Thank you The births and deaths listed on this page are only for people for whom there is a Wikipedia article. Please do not add yourself, or anyone without a Wikipedia article. Any entry added for anyone without an article will be deleted. The events listed on this page should be events that are globally notable and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Further guidelines for what should and should not be included are provided at Wikipedia:Days of the year. Events not meeting these guidelines will be removed. The formatting of this page is considered static and should not be changed unless discussed to consensus at WT:DAYS. The formatting is based on the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template and includes spacing, use of – instead of –, the number of sections, overlinking of years, and the use of references.

---

Assuming no one objects within the next week (before Jan 21), I'll implement this. Please feel free to adjust the wording as shown above. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a little more. Edit mercilessly if necessary. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created {{DOY page notice}} with the message and added it to the January pages. Before doing the rest of the months, we could wait a bit and try to figure out if it makes any difference. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finally creating this! My only suggestion would be to make the "Do not add yourself" section even more noticeable. Maybe, just maybe, it will stop somebody from putting themselves or their friends in there. Wishful thinking, I know. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about adding a category to each page so they can be maintained? If it was in a category like Category:DOY edit notices we could easily check that the templates don't get removed or altered using something like AWB. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What, you don't want another 366 pages on your watchlist :) ? Adding them to a category would be fine with me. Actually, I see they are (accidentally) in category:Editnotice templates. I meant for the template to be in this category, but since the individual notices themselves transclude the template, and the categorization of the template is not conditional, each page's notice ends up in this category. I'll fix this. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Here's a list of clearly irrelevant additions to the January pages over the last two weeks (January 15 through January 28):

If anyone wants to fill in the rest of the month, please do (I will at some point if no one else does). This is clearly partial data, and perhaps not statistically significant, but on first glance it's looking like the edit notice makes no difference whatsoever. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've filled in the rest of the month. The number of clearly irrelevant edits made to any January article between Jan 15 through Jan 21 (one week before the editnotice was created and applied to all the January articles) was 97 vs. 83 such edits made the week following when the editnotice was created (between Jan 22 and Jan 28). Limiting the comparison to edits to the Jan 15 to Jan 21 articles made during the interval of Jan 15 to Jan 21 vs. edits to the Jan 22 to Jan 28 articles made between Jan 22 and Jan 28, the counts are 68 and 54, respectively.

I guess my conclusion is that adding the editnotice makes a minor difference to edits not made on or near the date the article is about (about a 14% reduction in this sample), bit a bigger difference (about a 20% reduction) to "drive by" edits made on or near the date the article is about. I guess this means it's probably worth adding the editnotice to the rest of the date pages. Anybody disagree? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We'll probably see a minor reduction in the good faith additions to the pages. At the least it will help to avoid arguments that editors aren't aware of the guideline. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the edit notice to the February pages and have changed the template so that it adds pages using it to Category:Pages with DOY page notice. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the edit notice to the March pages. If anybody else wants to do any of these, please feel free. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I did the rest of the year. I didn't do the non-standard dates like January 0, February 30 because they're not in this project -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Date in topic

I'm sure this must have been discussed before, but here goes. What if we divided the non-political (non-historically-significant) events into topics, so that we had a section like "December 31 in art" or "December 31 in music"? Deb (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 7 in baseball. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

See this discussion too. It more directly addresses the question. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I was proposing - but it doesn't sound like anyone had strong feelings one way or the other. Deb (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

To make sure I understand - is the suggestion to 1) add topic specific sections to the existing DOY pages, 2) move existing events related to those topics (but not births/deaths?) into these sections, and 3) then expand these sections by adding events that don't meet the current notability guidelines at WP:DOY (presumably creating guidelines someplace for what topic-specific events should be added)? Wouldn't this tend to make the DOY pages unreasonably large? Splitting the topic-specific information off as separate pages was the topic of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 7 in baseball. I think the resolution about the baseball articles was reasonable. I'd favor keeping the current guidelines and adding any topic-specific information elsewhere (like at a topic portal). Note that there are already "year in music" articles, e.g. 2011 in music, with more specific articles by country and genre listing lots and lots of events not listed on the DOY pages. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

It's been a few years since we discussed the addition of images to the date pages. It seems like there has been some activity in this area and it seems like a good time to discuss it again. Over time, the addition of images to the date articles has generally been discouraged. The reason is that there are so many entries, it is nearly impossible to determine which images represent the most notable events on the page. Elevating one event over another usually represents a subjective judgement and we've tried to discourage it. Thoughts? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly it leads to controversy, best to have an elite group that gets the privilege of deciding what images to place into the page, if any at all Ken Tholke 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentholke (talk • contribs)

Turtlens (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Someone added photos to March 29, so should they be deleted? It wasn't me. :-/

Does anyone know...

I'm dense as can be sometimes, perhaps most of the time. Can someone explain to me in simple terms, terms my "pea brain" can comprehend how every footballer around the world who has ever lived and so much as sat on the sideline and played only two minutes in their professional career has made a significant contribution to history? Does this reasoning apply to badminton players, ping pong players, curlers, handballers, BMX bikers, etc? Ken Tholke (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ATH governs notability for athletes. In most cases if someone has ever played at a fully professional level, they are considered notable. As far as DOY is technically concerned, being the subject of an article is the minimum requirement and some could be excluded, but no clear consensus has been reached on a way to determine which should be excluded. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 19:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Where can I click to initiate a discussion on gaining concensus toward this and having things possibly ethced in stone? I know your stance (I believe), and I can tell the stance of the few loading these pages up past the point of what is reasonably manageable. But what about everyone else? Is there an official process to follow? Ken Tholke (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It might do you some good to get familiar with past discussions on the topic. That way you won't be blindsided by some of the arguments. Start here and here and here and here and here. Then discussion would take place at WT:DOY (that's the guideline page, this is the project page). You can bring more attention to the discussion with a post at WP:RFC but I would go slow with that. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha and thanks Ken Tholke (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Establishing a project goal

In order to maintain the DOY births and deaths which are at this stage absolutely unmanageable (see March 4), not only is concensus needed in respect to having well defined guidelines for inclusion, strong comradarie is needed as well. More gets accomplished when people work together and when they have clearly defined goals and policies helping guide them.

There has been much discussion in the past lending evidence to the problem of anyone having a Wiki article making their way onto these lists. I believe at this point, it has become dire that we establish this project's ultimate goal in black and white. Is it to be a collection of everyone having a wiki article or is it to be a collection of those who have made an actual impact on a significant portion of people in numerous walks of life? Are we to include the obviously self-written articles that are referenced by the obviously self-written bios? Are we to include sports figures that have no record-setting feats? Are we to include each and every Purple Heart recipient? Are we to include everyone who has appeared on The Dating Game, Survivor, Hollywood Squares, Jeopardy, Bob Villa's "This Old House?" That is pretty much what we currently have. We have lots of notables burried deep under ten times the amount of non-notables. And it is primarily the doing of just a small handfull of editors who will never spend proper time maintaining these lists.

To reflect this project's goals and to help empower concerned editors, I'm proposing that we change the very first line of the WP:DOY page which currently reads:

When compiling lists of events for inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year articles, it is necessary to keep in mind that what's listed should be notable both around the globe and throughout time. The items selected should be relevant to all Wikipedians, regardless of nationality, interests, and beliefs.

to:

When compiling lists of events, observances and persons for inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year articles, it is necessary to keep in mind that what's listed should be notable both around the globe and throughout time. It should be relevant to more than just one group having strong interest in the listing unless that one group is representative of the majority of Wikipedians everywhere, regardless of nationality, interests and beliefs. Events, observances and persons having only the potential to become notable in the future are at no time to be included in these lists and should be removed promptly upon discovery. Persons whose sole claim to notoriety is their being associated with a person, group or event that is notable are at no time to be included without concensus having been reached prior to their inclusion. The Days of the year articles are not meant to be lists of everyone or everything having a Wikipedia article.

I feel that once a more clear-cut goal becomes set forth, the "stringent guidelines" mentioned in the WP:DOY Births and deaths section will be easier to put into actual words.

Anyone want to second the motion? Anyone disagree? Ken Tholke (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not saying I disagree - but I think it might be helpful to first clarify the purpose of the birth/death lists on these pages. I suspect some would argue that the purpose is to list everyone with a Wikipedia article who was born/died on that date - making these lists effectively manually maintained categories. If the lists are pruned to only those people who have some greater notability than implied by wp:bio is there any way for a reader who wants a list of everyone with an article who was born/died on some date to actually get such a list? I think this proposal might go ever better if it's coupled with a proposal for some way folks who want complete lists might be able to get them. Just for reference, a previous suggestion to create categories for each day's birth/death lists was discussed here. Any solution is likely to involve the folks at WP:WPBIO. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes it confusing for me at least is the edit notices, the in-page comments, the statement "Also, being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wikicalendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wikicalendar articles." It all points toward being discerning yet I for one don't want to be remembered as the one who went against the flow. Just because I feel like I'm part of the majority doesn't mean I actually am. I'd like as many as possible to chime in on this discussion and let their thoughts be known so I and everyone else can get a feel for what direction they should be working toward. It's pointless for me to maintain a list that is only going to keep getting stuffed larger and larger and larger. It's shoveling sand against the tide, so to speak. And the larger they get, they less inclined people are going to be to take an hour or two pouring through checking, trimming, sorting. Ken Tholke (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for having all births/deaths in these pages. Not only for Inclusionism but to be practical: 1. they could be maintained by bots; 2. it would avoid never ending debates, even edit wars, on what to include and not too. Also remember, WP:NOTPAPER. I would use my energy into developing such bots rather than creating rules which will open cans of worms and conflicts.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My first thoughts are also about the stumbling blocks of possible inclusion criteria; which would not be followed by non-project members anyway. Any one of us controlling the pages may deem a new addition notable, the next person to review a diff might feel different and revert the change. I like the idea of categories; it works on other Wikipedias quite well even without the year of birth. Jared Preston (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

July 11th

In page 11 July there's part that says Anne of Bohemia was born then, but her page says she was born in 11th of May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.133.234 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement dates between DOY and individual article

Hard to title this question/complaint. Let me offer the example that prompts me to write, today. Among today's (September 28) listings in "On This Day" is:

"1787 – The newly completed United States Constitution is voted on by the U.S. Congress to be sent to the state legislatures for approval."

Yet, when one follows the link for [States Constitution] it gives the date for the vote as September 17, 17897. One or the other of those dates can be correct, but not both. I had always understood September 17 to be day, and several other sources agree with that. ONE of those sources is (ta-da) the United States Constitution, which says:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

I like to send notes about significant historical events to my grandchildren and, often, post them on Facebook. I usually rely on "On This Day" to trigger those notes. But, what do I do with this significant event, write it up on September 17 and then AGAIN on the 28th? How does such an incorrect date creep into the "On This Day" page? Has someone created a calendar that feeds these entries? How would Wikipedia have two conflicting dates for such an event?

There is no confusion of the date of the vote in the Constitutional Convention and the official adoption after ratification. The document was not officially ratified until March 4, 1789.

I apologize if this note should have been submitted in another way. I tried to make an entry on the "Talk" page for "On This Day, but it presented no such opportunity.

In addition, I have found similar disagreements on a number of entries in the On This Day" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejazzmonger (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the articles, it appears that it was adopted on September 17 but a vote was taken to submit it to the states for ratification on September 28. It would appear that this entry is accurate. For future reference, DOY (days of the year) and OTD (on this day) are not the same and are not governed by the same rules. If you want to discuss September 28, Talk:September 28 is the best place. For Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 28, Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 28 is the place. For overall project discussions about the DOY pages, this is a good place. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)