Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Shape of Arch of St Louis

Perhaps this discussion has taken place multiple times before, but in reading the 28 October 2012 entry for "on this date..." I notice that the St Louis arch has been given the adjective parabolic, when in reality the arch is a catenary and not a parabola. I learned this upon my first visit to the arch years ago, and have since reinforced the notion to my calculus students.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, but discussion on this should take place at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/October_28. On this date is not part of WP:DAYS. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

March 32

March 32, currently a redirect to April Fools' Day, has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 26#March 32. The discussion has widened to include other dates such as February 0 and September 31. It has been suggested that a consistent approach should be taken to all these dates, and that members of this WikiProject would be well placed to advise. Your comments are therefore invited at the above-linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

9 January

At the top of the page it is described as the "nineth" (sic) day of the month instead of the ninth. I cannot see how to correct this. Can anyone help? Tim riley (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing it out. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good examples for "Days of the year" articles

Are there any examples of Featured, Good or B-class articles for "Days of the year" articles? Is there any assessment process in place for the project? I am trying to find a well-written/copy-editing examples, since the style guide doesn't cover all details. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no assessment process. All of the pages (with a few transient exceptions) should meet the style guideline. But it's likely that none meet the notability guideline in full. What details do you feel are missing from the style guide? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well meanwhile I discovered also WP:DOY which brings more detail on the style. Maybe it should be merged somehow with the WP:DAYS#Style. It would be nice though to use assessment, to verify the adherence to the style and grade that. --Codrin.B (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOY is the content guideline, not the style guide. It seems that you are confusing the purpose of each of them (or just grouping everything under the term "style"). They were separated years ago intentionally. Combining them would be like combining WP:N and WP:MOS. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right! Lines like "The date pages should be kept clean of trivia such as film history, fabricated holidays and observances, fictional events, etc." from WP:DAYS#Style made me think that the two cover the same ideas. So maybe the style guide should be trimmed of content-related suggestions. Indeed, they should be kept separate and have distinct purposes.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

25th of January - Santes Dwynwen

Santes Dwynwen is the Welsh patron saint of love (Welsh Valentines Day), it's been elebrated by Welsh people for hundreds of years, it has it's own Wiki page and as such, it should be listed under days of the year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.243.84 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

September 6, 2011

I am about to propose the date of departure of Michael S. Hart:

• 2011 – Michael S. Hart, Gutenberg Project founder
  

any comments about it?
I have allready added the day of birth (March 8, 1947): I hope this doesn't upsets anyone.
  M aurice   Carbonaro  11:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean death date? Add it. No need to ask. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)}, death date. Just an euphemism like "joined the immortals". I am asking because I am having an admin lately that keeps undoing all my changes commenting them in an offensive way. Catch U L8R.   M aurice   Carbonaro  11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing of people with unknown ages/years of birth

I'm not sure if this has been discussed here before but here it goes. Some notable people want (or at least try to) keep their ages secret. Nowadays, this is a fairly uncommon practice, at least in the Western world (except mainly for lesser known celebrities or public figures), but in Japan, this is a fairly common practice, even among relatively well-known people. However, to my knowledge, only the Japanese and Italian Wikipedias include people with unknown ages in their articles of dates, although the Japanese Wikipedia only seems to list Japanese people with unknown ages, while the Italian Wikipedia lists mainly Italians and Japanese, with a handful of Americans and other nationalities. The question is: why hasn't the English Wikipedia adopted this practice of listing people with unknown years of birth? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Where would they be listed? It doesn't seem to be worth the effort to redesign all of the date pages to accommodate a very small number of special entries. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the rather late reply. Well, in the case of the Japanese Wikipedia, such people are listed at the bottom of the Births section (see February 13), while in the case of Italian Wikipedia, such births are listed at the top of Births section (again, see February 13). If there's consensus to add people with unknown ages to Wikipedia articles on dates, then consensus will be determined whether to follow the Japanese Wikipedia or Italian Wikipedia style. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Date Format

Why do the English Wikipedia primary DOY articles use American style dates, i.e., month day? If you look down the Languages links in the left panel, probably more than 90% use the "day month" convention, which is also used in British, Australian and (I believe) other English variants. Aside from being unconventional (as "against the conventions of most of the world"), the American style has another potential problem. There are articles for months of each year currently going at least far back as January 1900. So a URL such as /wiki/March_13 is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as March of the year 13 CE (and some may even confuse it with March of 2013). JmA (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

April 4th: Grumpy Cat

On the page for April 4th, Grumpy Cat is not listed under birthdays. I think this is an important one that should be added.

Ziplock80 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

References to nationality on days of the year pages (particularly births and deaths sections) often seem out of synch with the subject's Wikipedia page. Please can this be reviewed when entering names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Examples? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

References where someone is described as 'English' on the date list but their Wikipedia page refers to them as British. A specific example would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Stamp,_1st_Baron_Stamp who is referred to on his page as a 'British' Civil Servant but on the 21st June list is referred to as an 'English' Civil Servant. While I appreciate the distinction can appear unclear, Wikipedia should be striving for accuracy and uniformity. Technically people from England, Scotland, Wales and (depending on the period) Ireland should be referred to as British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In your example, both are correct. He is both British and English. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed he is both, but in reference it should be 'British' that is listed unless there is particular reason to refer to the part of the national entity that the subject comes from. To give an example, Barak Obama is from Hawaii (a part of the USA) so it is correct to refer to him as a Hawaiian. However, I suggest it would not be correct to refer to him as a Hawaiian president or as a Hawaiian in anything relating to another nation. He would be referred to as American or from the United States of America. Nor should one page refer to him as a Hawaiian and another refer to him as an American. Where someone is employed by a national agency such as the British Civil Service or national military, I believe that they should be referred to in relation to the national or international entity. So, a British general, British judge, American general, American president, etc.

If you have a look at http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/51978/what-is-the-difference-between-english-and-british this may clarify this business. Whether reference is made to the individual countries or to the political entity, it should be uniformly used on the pages. Robata (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your US example is a good one. The US states are not sovereign nations. What is your proposal to resolve the problem? My suggestion is that you follow WP:SOFIXIT. You're going to run into people that just don't know the difference. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that consensus could be achieved. Even if the term cannot be agreed on, I would hope Wiki users can see that it is important that date lists and their related web pages display the same information because contradiction will just confuse. On reflection, I agree that the US is a poor example. What I needed was a supranational entity. For example the former Soviet Union. Although he may have been a Russian, the President would correctly be referred to as President of the Soviet Union. Head of the KGB would not have been head of the Polish, Yugoslavian or Russian KGB but the Soviet KGB. Military forces would collectively have been Soviet forces. People defected from the Soviet Union. In his Wikipedia web page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Baryshnikov is listed as being a Latvian but a former Soviet citizen. So, an English person would legally be a British citizen. The page also refers to 'Soviet choreographers'. There are now other supra-national entities such as the African or European Unions. So, someone could be described as English, British, European or all three. The question is which is appropriate. I believe that it depends on context, specifically the relation between the person and the subject being discussed. For example, within Britain, it would be acceptable to refer to someone as English, Scottish, etc. but someone outside of Britain should refer to them as British. If the interaction was at a continental level, for example discussion of British people in Africa, it would be appropriate to refer to someone British as European. Robata (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is larger than WP:DAYS and would probably be better discussed elsewhere. A more broad consensus is needed that applies to all articles, not just the days. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been changing some of the entries listed as 'English' to 'British' (or other nations as appropriate). I believe consensus has been achieved already within Wikipedia. If you refer to the Wikipedia page /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people#In_the_United_Kingdom (as I should have done at the start of this) there is a very clear explanation that England, Scotland, Wales have not been sovereign nations since 1701 but elements of 'The United Kingdom of...' with the ending varying according to Ireland's status within the Union. Emergence of national identity notwithstanding, all citizens of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are legally and politically British and should be listed as such on any lists of people from the United Kingdom. The only exceptions would be where there is a sporting team from within the UK for example, English cricketer, Scottish footballer but unless the team is specific to a nation, they should be listed as British sportsmen/women. This is not my opinion but correct usage employed by the BBC, British government, IMDB etc. Robata (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Censoring Certain words in the articles of 'Days of The Year'

Hello everyone. I ,Eldavquantum, would like to have a consensus on Censoring Certain Words. My reason for this is that I have seen a few kids browse through these articles to find out about famous people in one's birthday. I would like to raise to your concern that certain inappropriate words are used.

Here are two measures which i think should be implemented: 1. A normal censor of words like this: ****. OR 2. Asking for an age verification. If below 18 years, the above first point must be implemented. If above 18 years, there needn't be any censoring. (I strongly recommend this method)

I think that this can only be done with your support! If you have a comment, please use a new line typing "==your username==" and below that, please type what you wish to say.

Thanks and Regards ~Eldavquantum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldavquantum (talk • contribs) 11:13, June 3, 2013‎

(I decline to use your non-standard labeling convention.)

1. Both clearly violates the guideline WP:NOTCENSORED; if you want to deal with that, bring it up on the appropriate talk page there.
2. Your "preferred" solution would require an additional technical modification of the Wikimedia software, which:
   1. Could not be done for IPs (readers not logged in), and
   2. As has been established in US court cases, cannot be done reliably, even if so intended.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor

With the rollout of Visual Editor, I anticipate a lot of edits being made to the DOY pages that don't comply to the established template for formatting. VE will use – instead of – so the pages will become an inconsistent mess similar to the days when – and - were mixed. In fact, we'll probably end up with – and - again. So the question is how shall it be handled? Should we go back to – and hope a bot can come along to fix mistakes? Or use that bot to go and change mistakes to –? The latter is likely to produce less work because the use of – is rare at this point. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Past tense.

This is last brought up in 2004. Or was it? In any case, it's due for review. Not a great answer last time.

Events should be written in the present tense, not the past or future tense. Entries should be written in a timeless fashion so that they do not need to be updated as time passes.

This rule is silly. These pages are about historical events, which obviously have happened, but aren't right now. That's the exact reason English has a past tense. Why would a time-based Wikiproject want to keep things timeless? Why would a past event ever need to be updated to a new tense as time passes?

I've never contributed to these pages, but am a proud sponsor, via my signatures. With your permission, o Timeless Ones, I'd like to start by bringing them into line with the continuum where the average reader exists.

Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's common for these types of lists to be written in present tense. Examples: BBC OTD, History, Biography. There really is no compelling reason to change. The latter part of your quote above refers to things like "current President", "reining champion", etc. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Those are using a "newspaper from the past" gimmick. We're not. Headlinese uses simple present tense, actual English uses past. And the last two are basically the same site, both half-owned by the Hearst Corporation. If English grammar rules aren't a compelling reason for change, there must be a better reason for disregarding them. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not as extreme as headlinese. From what I see, it ain't broke. There is no disregard for grammar rules. When the events happened it was the present. If the events are added as they happen, present tense is appropriate. Viewing from the perspective that "this is that day" there is no problem. If you feel wider discussion on the topic is needed, perhaps RFC is appropriate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when the events happened, it was the present. Now is not when the events are happening. Now, the events have happened. Now, readers read about past events. Who in their right mind would view from the perspective that today is July 3, 1035 and William the Conqueror has just been is being made Duke of Normandy? I'm sure these people exist, but Wikipedia is for general audiences.

It's clearly broken, and I guess a RfC is needed, if you're the only one watching this page. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I really can't see the problem, Hulk. I think the general, casual reader of Wikipedia will, and can note the year next to the event. There is no need to change the tense of these entries. Jared Preston (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem's just that. A general reader will note the year, note that it was seven (or seven hundred) years in the past and then read about it like it's live. Our Manual of Style says plain English works best. We know that in English, past tense is meant for verbs that aren't happening or yet to happen.

In light of that, what reason is there for keeping it backwards, other than that's the way it's been and how newspapers would look if the event happened today instead? There's no rationale in the Wikiproject MoS, none here, none in the 2004 "debate". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

Your rule cannot override WP:TENSE, which says perpetual present tense is for fiction, past is for history.

Whether you change your own Wikiproject MoS to reflect the wider consensus or not, the rule is invalid.

Now that you see how it's broken, you can either help me fix your articles, convince the broader community your actions are right or be the Wikiproject with the 366 cleanup tags. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagging the articles to make a point would be disruptive and I consider the threat to do so coupled with an ultimatum to be incivil. Consensus for this has existed and the evidence for the consensus is that thousands of editors have followed this practice and one editor in the last 9 years has made an issue of it. That editor is you. The burden is on you to convince the broader community that the current practice is detrimental to the project. You can cite TENSE and LOCALCONSENSUS all you want, and I'll cite IAR. It is only a problem in your opinion and unless you can build a new consensus, I see no reason to change it. Since you've brought an ultimatum to the discussion, which I consider bad faith, I consider the discussion completed unless/until you create an RfC and get outside input to support your wish to change consensus.

I'm closing this discussion only to indicate that no further action is likely without further input and that since an ultimatum was issued, a fresh start will be necessary. Don't take this as an effort by me to stop the conversation as a whole. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No point.

I'm not threatening you with anything, I just gave you the facts and explained your options (not counting closing the discussion and ignoring all rules).

You can help me improve your articles by writing the way the Wikipedia MoS says, and the way the general English world does.

You can convince the community that the past should be written about as if it's in the present.

Or I can tag the articles till I get around to fixing them, in the hopes that a reasonable editor will help improve the encyclopedia.

It wouldn't be pointy. Cleanup tags are there for a reason, and one of your project's stated goals is consistency. If I tagged just one or two, that wouldn't be consistent.

Not sure where you see the threat, but it doesn't matter. I've started the RfC on the Manual of Style talk page, you're welcome to chip in. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're not acknowledging the fact that you are the only person with a problem with the tense. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll acknowledge it. It doesn't make me any less right. And there's another editor who agrees on the RfC. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let's allow the RfC to play out. Can we agree not to make any changes until then? If consensus is that a change is required, can we then agree to come back here to determine how to attack the changes so they're done quickly and across the board? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to not change it from past tense. We've established that whatever consensus does or doesn't exist here is invalidated by the general consensus at TENSE, which says use past tense. That would be the "default setting". But yeah, if the RfC goes to your side, feel free. I'll wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The ongoing RfC is here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for use of historical present tense in the DOY articles has been confirmed here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

August 28, 1964

Proposal to add date of birth of Cécile Kyenge, minister of integration of the current italian Letta Cabinet with the following line:

(* 1964 – Cécile Kyenge, Minister of integration of the Letta Cabinet (27th April 2013-current)).

Any comments, please?   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's notable, but the description should be Italian politician, rather than noting a specific minister under a specific government with specific mal-formatted dates. Furthermore, you should bring it up in Talk:August 28. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. BTW is a "she" and not a "he". I guess that you are implying that "(...) noting that is a specific minister under a specific government (...)"... could lead to... NPOV?. Thanks for suggesting me Talk:August 28. Maybe I will just drop the matter for now. Let's see in the future.   M aurice   Carbonaro  09:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the gender. As for the specifics, it's not NPOV, it's a matter of the guidelines for this project. (I guess it was proper to bring it up here, sorry.) With the exception of some positions, such as President or Prime Minister, we list the occupation, not the job title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Bunin

According to the article he was born on October 22 not October 10 of the year 1870. There was a double entry. Lighthead ^þ 23:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Aug 31 was finale for Mister Rogers' Neighborhood

I don't see how this could be opposed (Mister Rogers' Neighborhood) but if anyone has any thoughts or comments I'm open to them. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The finale of no television show is notable in this context unless it breaks some sort of record. Even then it probably isn't appropriate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

31 seasons and having the star called before the landmark Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (in district court) and received "the Presidential Medal of Freedom, some forty honorary degrees, and a Peabody Award. He was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame, was recognized by two Congressional resolutions, and was ranked No. 35 among TV Guide's Fifty Greatest TV Stars of All Time." all based on the show. Not certain what else would define notability. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is any of that relevant outside the US? Should we have mention of some event associated with every one of the 50 greatest tv stars? When it comes to long running programs, do we include Guiding Light, Professional Bowlers Tour, As the World Turns, Wide World of Sports, etc.? I really don't think so. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

By that logic only about 1% of the events listed on these are relevant outside their country of origin so if that's the only obstacle for inclusion then it should already be included, besides US copyrights carry beyond US borders, so does DVR & Tivo technology.

Also by your 2nd points logic the answer is obvious according to Wikipedia, the 1969 US Senate testimony, a Smithsonian exhibit and 5 emmys along with it being public televisions longest running show by 2001 also make this more notable than just a successful TV show. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

January 12 All in the Family premiers. And much appreciation for your points in favor of making this addition. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

January 25 Guiding Light ibid. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

September 18 ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that other entries have not been removed is not an argument to include another one. Each event must be evaluated individually and stuff gets missed.

Other shows have surpassed its longevity so that's out as a criterion. Other shows have won many more Emmys so that's out. I don't know where you're getting the 1% number but it's not relevant. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly are you pulling these from? There are multiple examples that what you write is not the guiding principals on this, then you assert some vague notion about it having to be relevant outside a nation of origin (which is not the case in 99% of these entries thus only the 1% of entries agreeing with you). Each time I easily overcome one of your concerns you come up with an even more irrelevant one and now seem to be tossing the game board over.

You must not use Tivo or DVR or online video outlets at all, must not ever enjoy public television. That's ok. Just hoping you do use WP:Commonsense. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about where I'm pulling these from. I'll assume you're asking what shows have surpassed it. Sesame Street, This Old House, The Woodright's Shop for longevity. Sesame Street for Emmys. My effort is to apply the guideline at WP:DOY. Application is not perfect because there are a lot of people adding stuff who don't know the guideline and not many checking it. I don't know what Tivo and DVR have to do with the conversation. I listen to Car Talk almost every day. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer your last question (Tivo, DVR), I was referring to my original comment on: "the landmark Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc." that has it quoted by the Supreme Court which kind of beats longevity and emmys (which isn't about 8 being more than 7 but more about shows with greater than 3 etc.) and which I thought we covered already.

I checked your wikilink, I can respect your interpretation of it but there seems to be no consensus on impactful long running TV shows by name. So inclusion just seems subjective so for the 3rd time "the landmark Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.", and 2nd the Senate testimony, etc. Copyrights know no borders (outside the US) especially with Emmys attached to the show. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline is ambiguous and that has been a problem. It's difficult to encompass all of the factors of notability into a date page entry. Generally, whatever comprises the whole of the entry should be able to convey why it's notable in the given context. But it wouldn't be appropriate to list all of the reasons you've provided because then we end up with an entry that is more of a narrative argument for notability than a simple list entry that says "here's what happened - it's obvious why this is here". -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but I read that as reasons for inclusion. Especially agree that narratives shouldn't be involved but I think you're confusing my answering your listed concerns with a text suggestion. With a lifetime achievement Emmy, a Presidential Medal of Freedom, several congressional testimonies & Youtube, Tivo & DVR owing their existence to the show it's one of the few contributions to these that needs no narrative since people from Pennsylvania Ave. to Hollywood Blvd. to Madison Avenue know why this is notable. Besides that's what the wikilink is for--users that need extra time with such things as Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)