Jump to content

Talk:November 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This box: view • talk • edit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

November 18

Aftermath of the Aggie Bonfire collapse
Aftermath of the Aggie Bonfire collapse
More anniversaries:


Untitled

[edit]

Inconsistency:

This is inconsistent with the article for November 17 which states that:

Obviously these conflict each other, with Columbus landing before actually sighting Puerto Rico. I lack specific dates, however. --90.209.127.236 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Removed:

Could not be confirmed outside of 'this day in history'-type websites (very bad source). --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Moved:

Nope. He first saw it on November 17. --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Moved:


Nope. It happened on November 28. --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removed:

Could not be confirmed. --mav 02:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Removed: I removed the anniversary "2002 - New Jersey schools ban dodgeball and tag." While this can be considered of some importance, ie relating to "zero tolerance" policies, the issue is a local one, and is hardly of importance compared with the other anniversaries, which are influential or memorable events. This event was neither in my opinion

Fictional Holidays?

[edit]

What the heck is "fictional holidays" supposed to mean? Is someone saying that Calvin and Hobbes Day is not a real holiday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.90.109 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2005

Calvin and Hobbes Day is not mentioned in Calvin and Hobbes so I am removing it. It appears to be only the day the comic strip started, thus is certainly not a real holiday. Even as an event it is not important enough for inclusion there. — Joe Kress 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin and Hobbes Day most certainly is a real holiday. In fact, my addition to the article mentioning it was there for months before you came along. A journalist even mentioned Calvin and Hobbes Day in an article they wrote.[1] A putting Calvin and Hobbes Day back on the article. If you remove it, I will simply put it back on again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.90.109 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 December 2005

my addition to the article mentioning it was there for months before you came along Looking back, it looks like that statement is, as George Bush likes to say, "non-operative": that was added on November 10th by User:69.218.246.223, which is presumably you. Eight days before the cited story and twenty-six days before your claim above is not "months", no matter what calendar you're using. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Joe Kress here, Calvin and Hobbes day is not a real holiday and should not be included in this list. An event as marginal as the start of a comic book series is simply not important enough to be mentioned on one of our "day" articles - if we included every comic strip, game etc, our lists would be hopelessly cluttered and utterly useless. -- Ferkelparade π 08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While "Calvin and Hobbes Day" is certainly not a holiday (Where is it celebrated? Do banks, post offices, and schools there close in honor of it? Do stores have Calvin and Hobbes Day Sales there?) neither is it too trivial to mention in the Events section -- where, I will note, there is and has been for as long as I can recall a mention at 1985. This was a hugely influential comic strip despite its brief run (2.4 million hits on Google), and when a complete "Calvin and Hobbes" collection was published recently it got a LOT of press (right now, "Calvin and Hobbes" gets 67 hits on Google News alone). My daily newspaper (The International Herald Tribune) still runs the strip, despite the fact that its run ended ten years ago.
Marking the first publication of this influential comic strip (NOT book, guy) is most definitely important enough to mention, and I, for one, will revert any attempt to remove its entry in the "Events" section -- and I will be not be alone, you can rest assured. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Errrm...wait a minute, I think my comment above was badly phrased - I don't really mind the entry under "events", and you might notice that I didn't touch that entry, so there's no need to argue about that. What I do oppose is the inclusion of made-up, fictional holidays based on such events that are not celebrated anywhere in the real world, and it seems we actually agree on that issue. And yes, I know it's a comic strip, not a comic book, so there's no need for condescending language - I used the phrase "comic book, game etc" as a catch-all phrase for stuff that's not necessarily on the same level as actual historical events -- Ferkelparade π 10:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An event as marginal as the start of a comic book series is simply not important enough to be mentioned on one of our "day" articles. Nothing about a holiday, just "event". Nothing about "game, etc" there, either. What part of that did I misunderstand? --Calton | Talk 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1.: That's what I meant with "badly phrased" :P I guess I got carried away while trying to tak some sense into the anon... 2.: I was referring to if we included every comic book, game etc,... (someone changed that to read "comic strip", I originally said "book", I guess that's what prompted you to say "NOT book, guy!"). Anyway, since we apparently agree on the original issue (ie, on removing Calvin and Hobbes day), can we consider this misunderstanding resolved? :) -- Ferkelparade π 14:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should not be under Holidays. Removing again since all but 69.223.90.109 seem to agree. Jeroen [[User_talk:Jkruis|(talk)]] 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this keeps coming up, judging by the change history. As a Calvin and Hobbes fan, I'd love if C&H Day existed. But an anniversary is not a holiday. If someone could provide a link to a government-sponsored holiday celebrating this comic, I'd love to see it, that way we can stop editing this page so much. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, this isn't the place to lobby for a C&H holiday. It's mentioned in the article that C&H started on November 18, isn't that enough? Wiggster 20:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I accidentally deleted this from my comment in between hitting Preview and Submit, but replying to the comment:
Calvin and Hobbes Day most certainly is a real holiday. In fact, my addition to the article mentioning it was there for months before you came along. A journalist even mentioned Calvin and Hobbes Day in an article they wrote.[2]
The linked story contains the following quote: To celebrate what is now officially Calvin and Hobbes Day -- at least according to Wikipedia and numerous on-line sources. We cannot rely on this as a source, as it is relying on Wikipedia as a source. C&H Day was in Wikipedia for months, so a journalist noticed that and wrote a small article mentioning it. If we are to include Calvin and Hobbes Day as a holiday, we'll need a reliable source, preferably one that predates the insertion of C&H Day into this article. Just because "Calvin and Hobbes Day" returns hits in Google does not mean that it's a holiday, it could simply be a meme. Wiggster 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing Google hits for "Calvin and Hobbes Day", but none are meme-like, in my opinion. The top hit is for the National Post story already cited (which itself cites Wikipedia), while the others I've skimmed are mostly either Wikipedia mirrors or coincidences ("A 'Calvin and Hobbes' day-dream? For real. Get it..." or "I think Poncho is the funniest cartoon since Calvin and Hobbes. Day the Earth "Stood Still, the...") As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing was cooked up by the user behind IP number 69.223.90.109, start to finish.
Upon further investigation, I see that the links I was seeing on Google weren't actually memes, fans were just using the term to describe November 18th. Some Star Trek fans celebrate First Contact Day on April 4th, to celebrate the flight of the ficticious Zefram Cochrane detailed in Star Trek: First Contact, but I wouldn't put that as a holiday on April 4th. Just because you can add the word "Day" to the end of something, it doesn't turn an anniversary into a holiday. Wiggster 16:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a holiday is not regognised by the goverment, does not mean it isn't a holiday at all. Calvin and Hobbes Day can be regognised as an obscure holiday. (along with smores day, talk like a pirate day, Literature week, ect.) Maybe someone can write an article listing the obscure holidays.--FelineFanatic13 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll refer you to the definition of a holiday, which criteria does Calvin and Hobbes Day meet? I cannot find any information in Google about what is done on Calvin and Hobbes Day. The only references are wikis (which no doubt garnered the information from Wikipedia or had the information added by the same people) and fan forums. Compare this to ITLaP Day; it is discussed in newspapers, celebrated at colleges, has countless pages devoted to it, etc. International Talk Like a Pirate Day is listed under the Holidays and observances because thousands, if not millions, celebrate it each year. Despite being a big fan of Calvin and Hobbes, I never heard of the notion about Calvin and Hobbes Day. If it is real as you say it is, please provide information about it. When did it start? Who started it? What is done to celebrate it? Who participates in it? As near as I can surmise, Calvin and Hobbes day is simply the anniversary of when Calvin and Hobbes started. That doesn't make it a holiday. Again, please provide some information. Refer to Wikipedia:Cite your sources; this is obviously being disputed (by fans of Calvin and Hobbes no less). Just because you want it to be a holiday doesn't make it one. If you're going to make the argument of it being an obscure holiday, please provide some information to back up that claim. I want to believe you, I just need some evidence. Wiggster 16:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add a comment such as <!-- Please do not add Calvin and Hobbes Day to this section until Consensus is reached on the talk page --> ? I'm not sure if the line from Good-faith to Bad-faith has been crossed and this could be considered vandalism, but a note might stop all the reverts without putting a ban up. Wiggster 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the user who put Calvin and Hobbes Day on the article. The only reason I do keep puting it back is that it was accepted by wikipedia for 26 days. In my opinion, that's enough reason to keep it there. If only two people agree it should stay, I will stop putting it up. --FelineFanatic13 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it went unnoticed for 26 days doesn't make it true. Since the majority here believes that C&H Day doesn't exist (and only one person actively believes that it does), it shouldn't be on the page. - Jeroen [[User_talk:Jkruis|(talk)]] 21:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, that's enough reason to keep it there. That's not a reason; it barely rises to the level of "excuse".
But can you explain why you and other people are so suddenly taking it down? Because it's untrue? Fake? Fictitious? Made up? Not real? The actual question should be why you want to re-add something that is untrue, fake, ficticious, etc.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong: to prove it, all you need do is cite a credible outside source. --Calton | Talk 21:37, 8 December 2005 (UT)

Seems to be a new meme out there, "National Have Sex with a Guy with a Mustache Day". Will it achieve persistent notability enough to warrant mention? I'm not certain. However, I thought I'd at least broach the subject here and people can keep an ear out. 67.149.196.50 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

[edit]
I believe the day articles are not meant to be the dumping grounds for all people in Wikipedia. Could You please elaborate where it says that: "[if] ...he has a genuine Wikipedia article, he's entitled to a listing." And when saying "be included here" I meant of course the article November 18. feydey 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'I believe the day articles are not meant to be the dumping grounds for all people in Wikipedia'. If that's your belief, it's incorrect: the Birth and Death listings, by long-standing practice, have two criteria only: accuracy and having a Wikipedia article, full stop, characterisations as a 'dumping ground' notwithstanding. I repeat, if 'he doesn't seem that notable to be included here', nominate the article for deletion, as that's the only way for your statement to become true. --CalendarWatcher 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please could You point to the page where it says: "[if] ...he has a genuine Wikipedia article, he's entitled to a listing" and "the Birth and Death listings, by long-standing practice, have two criteria only: accuracy and having a Wikipedia article". Personally, after going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, I found no such guidelines. If these guidelines are given somewhere could You please give a link to there. Thanks, feydey 08:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what portion of 'by long-standing practice' was unclear? When did I say or even suggest that written policy was involved? The phrase 'by long-standing practice', in fact, implies just the opposite. And demanding rigidly bureaucratic guidelines to dissuade you from applying purely subjective standards doesn't strike you as the least bit contradictory?
I'll make it simple: I WILL revert any deletions of listings for subjects of bona fide Wikipedia articles, in accordance with long-standing practice. Full stop. Unless you can point me to a guideline that says I can't. Are we clear? --CalendarWatcher 12:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cool!

[edit]

Whoa we've got the records for what happened on 11/18/2006 and it's only been that date for one and a half hours! The Texas Drama King 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Duk-koo

[edit]

I’ve moved a line about the death of boxer, Kim Duk-koo to this page, from the entry on the 17th November. I did this the article on Kim Duk-koo gives 18th November as the day of his death.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Duk-koo

Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Atwood

[edit]

Margaret Atwood (b. November 18, 1939) should be restored to the list of births on this date. Her entry, as it appeared until November 14, was as shown below:

Atwood's entry disappeared when the entry for Margaret Jay, born on the same date, was added.

Thank you! 2607:FEA8:22A0:280:AC4E:5A4B:F10B:2515 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good eye. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually done with this edit, on the grounds that the UPI reference was not acceptable. So we need to look for alternative sources. Deb (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an alternative source now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That editor had also removed Louis Daguerre so I found a better source and put him back. Deb (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference UPI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_18&oldid=1255090495"