Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Break up Category:Days

Currently, Category:Days has over 200 articles, and I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Why not break it into subcategories, one for each month, and put the individual day articles there? Melchoir 06:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is objection, I'm going to do this pretty soon. Melchoir 22:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay... Melchoir 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work! -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 06:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Another request for Criteria

Every Day article I've checked so far has useless trivial information listed. March 24, 1991 - "The World Wrestling Federation presents the stars and stripes WrestleMania VII in Los Angeles, California, renacting the Gulf War in a wrestling ring." March 23, 1963 - "In London, United Kingdom, Grethe & Jørgen Ingmann win the eighth Eurovision Song Contest for Denmark singing "Dansevise" (Dancing tune)." And so on.

This makes me question the entire purpose of having days of the year articles, since they seem to be nothing but collections of links to wikipedia articles of dubious importance. March 24, 1986 - "Van Halen releases 5150 (album). This was their first album with Sammy Hagar as lead singer." Ok, fine, but was that the most important event of that day, worldwide? Same question for the following: March 24, 1973 - "Kenyan track runner Kip Keino defeats Jim Ryun at the first-ever professional track meet in Los Angeles, sanctioned by the International Track Association."

With no one apparently bothering to check to see if the events listed are really notable, and without clear criteria as to what belongs on the list of notable events, or who does and doesn't belong in the list of births and deaths, how are these articles ever going to be anything but a bunch of trivia links? --Xyzzyplugh 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. There are potentially thousands of facts out there in wikiland that can go in each day - some threshold of importance is needed otherwise these pages become pointless. Also, speaking as a non-American, I wonder if there is there really a need for so many baseball facts? --Spondoolicks 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

I made a Wikiproject Days of the Year template that I will replace the plain old text with:

|}

--Weatherman90 15:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Holidays and observances - other calendars

I propose that H&Os only be listed when they fall on the same Gregorian day each year (or a reasonable approximation). There's no use in having a note that Easter or Ramadan (or whatever) fell on this day in 2005, or the day pages will either a) become cluttered up with these dates, or b) become ephemeral, being a pocket-diary rather than an encyclopaedia. Pseudomonas 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the criteria for births and deaths be applied to holidays and observances as well. If a holiday doesn't have an article it is likely not notable and thus it shouldn't be listed. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable suggestion if a "Day" has no article it has little if any notability. However, there is also a need to avoid making an article the only criteria, there are I suspect some very local days that have articles, so a global (or at least national) notability test is also needed. There is perhaps a difficulty with Liturgical feasts; I am, I hope, free from bias or partiality on the subject, but there are many who might get upset if their favourite saint got removed, although it can easily be said that if you want to see them listed write the article. --Drappel 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Having been taking notice of the number of redlinked saints I think they need to pass the "NO article , NO listing" test, the same as births and deaths. --Drappel 15:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Timelines

I have just reformatted the moribund Wikipedia:WikiProject Timelines so that people who are interested can add themselves to the membership section and co-operate on developing Wikipedia:Timeline standards and specific timeline articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for Events - A Suggestion

Recently, I've dedicated my Wikipedia time to trying to improve the quality of Wikicalendar pages. I've read what some of you have written above about the sorts of events being listed in calendar pages, and I agree, we need to agree upon criteria for what should be listed and what should not. Here are some ideas I came up with:

What Should Be Listed

  • Records significant on a global scale, such as firsts (first human to walk on the moon, to climb Mount Everest, to reach Antarctica, etc.), extremes (maybe hottest/coldest temperatures recorded)
  • Beginnings, ends, and perhaps significant battles or movements in global wars or wars involving at least one country considered a world power at the time of the war. By significant battles, I mean those that turned the tide of the war, such as D-Day.
  • Dates of independence/liberation/formation of countries
  • Dates significant world leaders/movements rose to power (by significant, I mean that the leader/movement had a significant impact on the world during their time in power, not just that they led a major world power).
  • Significant social firsts - date when first country/major country abolished slavery, allowed women to vote, allowed same-sex marriage, and so forth, date when a person/group made a significant social milestone
  • Perhaps attempted assassinations of significant world leaders/influential figures, since successful assassinations should go under "deaths"
  • Natural disasters that killed a significant (few thousand?) number of people, or ones that significantly impacted a major metropolis/country (the tsunami of 2004, Hurricane Katrina, and that sort). Just one listing should do - we shouldn't need to know, for example, date the hurricane formed, date it first made landfall, date it dissipated, etc.)
  • Dates of important documents that had major sociopolitical implications - the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, etc.
  • Major terrorist attacks that greatly affected countries
  • Major dates in the history of world religion. If it's overly speculative (or if the religion is practiced by less than 1 million people or another sizeable number), it shouldn't be included.
  • Milestones in inventions/technology - the date the nuclear bomb was first used successfully, the date the first computer went on the market, patent dates, etc.

What Should Not Be Listed

*In general, events that would not be of interest globally/that do not have an impact on more than one country.

  • Births and deaths - I've seen these put in there from time to time
  • Future events - this is speculation
  • Dates that television programs, movies, books, video games, etc. premiered - this is not notable on a global scale
  • Sport records - unless they are significant world records (speed) or social precedents (first black man to play in MLB)
  • Sport results - stuff like "____ won the Superbowl" is non-notable as it might be of interest to a limited number of football fans in one country. These records should be kept on their own pages on Wikipedia.
  • Dates of festivals (national, local, global) - this is a yearly occasion, not a one-time event
  • Minor natural disasters - i.e. "Mudslide kills two people in rural Kansas"
  • Minor terrorist attacks - i.e. "Suicide bomber kills ten people in Israel"
  • Repetitive events - i.e. multiple sightings of comets, listings of every person to become president of a country, regardless of the impact of their presidency

Withstanding the test of time?

I notice that on many pages, there are many events listed for recent years, while the events listed for past years become sparser. Perhaps we should consider trimming these events to only those we think will be remembered in 10, 20, 50, or more years. For example, from May 13 - "2000 - In Enschede, the Netherlands, a fireworks factory explodes, killing 22 people, wounding 950, and resulting in approximately €450 million in damage. " - was this significant on a global scale? Did it start a war/massive reforms? Did people outside the Netherlands take notice, even then?

Thanks for your attention, and please add your comments/opinions/criticisms. Hopefully we can come to an agreement/start a policy that will ultimately improve the qualities of these pages. Fabricationary 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been reviewing events for most of the date articles over the last couple of months. Fabricationary's suggestions are right on target with my thoughts. This is an Encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia. Event information in these articles should serve as milestones of human advancement. This precludes most movies, television shows, records, sporting events, video games, and election results. I suggest we use Fabricationary's bullet point lists as our standards and point of reference for future discussions. Kudo's for bringing these issues to the fore. Rklawton 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done, Fabricationary. I like your list. While the pages are full of useful information, we need to do something to keep the pages readable. Now that the clamp is on, we need some "diverting", or we'll end up spending a lot of time removing non-qualifying items. Perhaps we need a "See also" section. Some Wikiprojects and Portals have there own Anniversaries section, e.g.
I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can find right now. While we force these 'less significant' (my POV) events out of the main wikicalendar, hopefully we are also helping these other 'satellite' or topic-specific wikicalendars grow. Maybe we shouldn't start removing things right away, unless items have another place to go to. Especially for events before 1600s. It's hard enough to get the date right. I don't want to lose them too easily. -- PFHLai 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think assassinations should be listed twice, once in the events section, once in the death section (if successful). The victim doesn't always die right away, e.g. William McKinley. The blurb in the events section should explain who did it, where and how, and explain the significance. A little context helps. -- PFHLai 03:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Besides natural disasters, maybe we need to include some notable plane crashes, shipwrecks, train derailments and other accidents. The sinking of the RMS Titanic and the Great Fire of London don't qualify, according to Fabricationary's List above. And how about the first reported case or the peak of a pandemic, such as Black Death, the post-WWI Spanish Flu or SARS ? -- PFHLai 03:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
As sports is religion to some, perhaps we should include major dates in the history of sports not related to record-setting. By that I mean the formation of The Football Association, the Olympics, the first Super Bowl, the first America's Cup, the first Stanley Cup, the first Test match in cricket/rugby, etc., not who won the championship in a certain year. -- PFHLai 04:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
How about the formation of the United Nations, Red Cross, NATO, Warsaw Pact, the African Union, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other international organizations ? And opening of major landmarks like the Eiffel Tower, the Panama Canal and the Golden Gate Bridge ? Michelangelo wrapping up his painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel ? Where to draw the line for these ? -- PFHLai 04:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
One last comment before I log off: Besides wars & battles, don't forget peace treaties, conferences like the Congress of Vienna, and formation of alliances and collaborations such as the Continental System and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And lastly, don't forget revolutions that don't involve independence/liberation/formation of new countries, e.g. the Glorious Revolution, the Orange Revolution and other coup d'états. -- PFHLai 04:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Great points, PFHLai :). I agree about directing valid entries that may not be globally significant to other sections - as you listed, some of these sections are already in place. In addition to pandemics, perhaps we can detail some accomplishments of medicine - development of the polio vaccination, etc. Perhaps the history of sports points you mentioned can be placed in sport-specific timeline pages, if they get too extensive, as for example many countries have their own football (soccer)/baseball leagues and the date each was established might get too long. Should we include milestones like "Women's figure skating is first held at the Olympic games," or is that better placed at a page with Olympic milestones?
I forgot to add above that release dates of CDs, regardless of the copies sold, should not be included, since they are non-notable on a global scale, and there are already "year in music" statistics available on Wikipedia.
If we can agree on these points, is making this into a working policy feasible? I invited a lot of users active in the Wikicalendar project to discuss this, so hopefully as we get more input, this'll improve. In the meantime, should this, modified with your additions, be stored on a user subpage and amended accordingly? Fabricationary 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Since no one seems to have any objections, I guess I'll start going through the date pages and removing non-notable items (according to these guidelines we've discussed) soon. Fabricationary 16:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! Rklawton 16:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new around here, looking at how people see notability criteria and stuff. Two thoughts from me. First, Fabricationary could helpfully place the working criteria as an essay on Wikipedia:Notability and in Category:Subject-specific notability criteria. Second thought's a bit trickier. Maybe a bit more effort ought go towards handling floating dates, rather than leaving them just as an inconvenient afterthought. From the Melbourne Cup to Eid and back again there's a lot of notable time-based events that don't live in a tidy date-based world. --Mereda 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mererda, thanks for your input! I've modified the above guidelines and made it into Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time. I invite you and all other contributors on this page to look it over and comment as you wish. Fabricationary 06:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
With respect to Future Events, if we know things are going to happen (i.e. the start of the Olympics) why can't they be listed? I only ask because my entry for the date of the Opening Ceremony of the 2010 Winter Games was removed. --Lord Tau 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Very rarely do we know of any significant world event before they happen. Sometimes it takes years to recognize an event's true impact. The start of the Olympics, past, present, or future, is not significant enough to be included as an event (with the exception of the first Olympics and perhaps the 1936 Olympics). Rklawton 13:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Just wanted to know. I'm still new at this Wikipedia thing :-) --Lord Tau 15:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lord Tau :). Additionally, while the Olympics is an event on a global scale, it's predictable since it repeats itself every two years (much like the FIFA World Cup every four years, Wimbledon every year, and peaceful presidential/government elections around the world every few years). If we listed the start/important outcome of, let's say, the 2002 Winter Games, to be consistent we'd have to list all the starts/ends/important events that occurred in all other Olympic games, which would take up a lot of room. I'm sure the Olympics generate much interest and that visitors to the calendar pages might be interested in reading about them, but for the sake of limiting calendar pages to the most relevant and true one-time events in history, we have to exclude them. Besides, someone who's looking for Olympic history will probably not go to the calendar pages but rather search for "Olympics" on the search bar.
Also, I agree with the point Rklawton made about the test of time as a criteria for determining events. You might note on a random date page that there are a multitude of events listed for the last ten years but much fewer listed for the preceding few hundred years. We don't have hindsight and can't predict which of these events will turn out to be watersheds and which will be relatively non-notable, but even if they are removed, they can be reinstated at a later date. Anyway, I hope you keep contributing to the Wikicalendar pages. Fabricationary 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Major events

I know that there are many events that affected history on every day in history, but perhaps something should be done for those that were even greater than the others. For instance, July 20 had tons of things that happened, but perhaps one of the greatest acomplishments in mankind's history happened, that of Man landing on the moon. Perhpas something such as boldfacing could be done? Tuvas 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tuvas! Actually, that sort of thing is already in effect on another Wikipedia project - Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. If you click on the Talk Page of any date page, you'll find a small number of the most important events occuring on any given day listed. These are the events that will appear on Wikipedia's home page that day. Fabricationary 06:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of day pages, again

I think this accidentally got erased:

Minor note, there are actually 367 of them: see February 30. Ardric47 08:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

New Subheading Format

It would appear that the date article format has been unilaterally changed by a sysop without prior discussion. To wit: April 1. I removed the change, "Periodic events," with explanation, but I received a notice that my actions would not be "tolerated." Silly, me. If anyone has any objections to this format change, you may address them to Mikkalai. You'll probably want to use his talk page since it's pretty clear he doesn't give a fig for project pages. Me? I'm going to run away and hide somewhere. I've never not been tolerated before. Well, maybe once, but she was off her meds, and I still have scars. Oh, and if anyone can interpret the second sentence of his note to me, please do so on my talk page. I can't make heads nor tails of it. Rklawton 01:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

I am in the process of going through the days removing links of academiccalendar.info/december/19.html this form from day articles where they exist. I am removing on the basis that they are being added by an anon IP who is spamming across all the articles, and not entering into discourse about this situation when I have placed spam1, spam2 warnings on his/her talk pages. The links themselves don't even show up on a google search, indicating this is not any sort of well established website, and with the BBC, NYT, and History channel links already in place unless a website can bring something to the party that respected websites don't cover then it is simply linkspam. If anyone has any views please feel free to post them -- SFC9394 13:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Further to my above comment I have now finished the cleanup of the site that was spammed. On my travels I came across links of this form which appear in about roughly a quarter of "date" articles. I would also view that as linkspam, but I have left it in until others give their views, as the links have been there for almost a year, and appear not to have been edited in in the same manner as the spam I reverted today, which was aggressively posted to nearly a hundred articles in two days. SFC9394 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Rklawton 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


"Film references"

I notice that November 5 has acquired a section entitled Film References (actually, Film Refrences [sic]) [1].

I've always staunchly removed the observations that Dr Scott in Back to the Future invented the flux capacitor on November 5, 1955... but obviously it would belong in this section. However, I can't see anything in the WikiProject permitting the addition of "film references" sections to the Days of the Year pages. Should this be deleted? - MykReeve T·C 11:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm similarly disinclined to the inclusion of film references. How would such a reference ever be considered a candidate for "On this day..."? -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Format/Birth/Death Suggestions

After spending some time editing these sections, I've identified some issues that we can discuss, if anyone has thoughts on these matters:

  • Births - should fictional characters be listed? One argument against their listing is that they are not born but rather created.
  • Links to bios tagged for deletion/speedy deletion - should they be retained until the page gets deleted, or removed right away?
    • Editor's judgement some nominations are obvious, some are not. Red links are easy enough to spot in the case of non-obvious nominations. Rklawton 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • General format - some editors add half a biography to a person's listing on a page - perhaps the general format should be trimmed to (first name, last name), (nationality adjective) (one or two words describing their most important occupation/claim to notability). This would make the pages flow more nicely and prevent a person's description from taking up multiple lines of text in a browser. If the person is a Nobel laureate, the format of the listing people seem to be following is {link to name of Nobel prize person won|Noble laureate) in addition to the standard form.
    • Less is More I think the bio should only be long enough to disambiguate the person. The shorter, the better. Folks can read the bio by clicking on the link. We only need to give the user enough information to assure him/her they are clicking on the right link. Rklawton 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Amount of detail - is it really important to know that Joe Schmoe is or was a quarterback for the the Miami Dolphins? Not all sports are team sports, so does it make sense to you all if the listing is trimmed to "Joe Schmoe, American football player?" Similarly, while a musician may spend his or her entire career in one band, making it sensical to make their listing "Mary Doe, Canadian musician (The Hallway)," is it necessary to cite actors, who spend their career shifting from part to part, by their notable roles of films?
    • Less is More - as per above. Just include enough to disambiguate - and provide the reader a clue. Ex: "Shirley Temple Black - American actress, diplomat" - is sufficient. Folks can click on the link to read all about her roles and diplomatic postings. Rklawton 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have any thoughts on these matters? Fabricationary 06:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Gripes with the System As It Is.

1) The "there are x days remaining" tag is unnecessary, and often wrong. It isn't going to be September 5 in 117 days, and even if it were, I wouldn't care. What's the deal with that, anyway? Does it have to be edited every day?!

2) I think there ought to be a 3-tier hierarchy. We already have 2 tiers: the selected anniversary events and everything else. Why not have:

A) Selected Anniversary B) "Notable World Events" C) "Misc."

I know we don't want to inundate users with lame stuff that isn't significant on an international scale. That's a big problem with the internet -- overwhelming people with stupid crap. But at the same time, part of the whole appeal of wikipedia is that you CAN check out stupid crap if you want to. As far as I'm concerned, if a video game has its own wikipedia article, and on that article its release date is listed as June 30, then by all means it deserves a spot on tier "C."

To be able to see a huge list of all kinds of random things that happened on any given day -- that would be really cool. That's something only wikipedia can offer. I understand that we wouldn't wanna drown "important things" in the process, which is why I think there should be three tiers.

The criterion for making tier C would be simple: the event must be internally referred to.

'--Nick 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nick, while your proposed category C is interesting, it's something I would oppose at the moment. I regularly maintain the Wikicalendar pages, and already, it's hard to categorize what is notable on a global scale from what is not. Attempting to separate major world events from non-major events that are still interesting would require a lot of work, and then it would be very difficult to maintain (as far as stuff like: "Pirates of the Caribbean released on DVD," "Jennifer Aniston and ____ get married," "Mariah Carey gives a concert at some venue," "Local mom and pop shop opens in Cleveland" etc.) If everything is kept, the pages would get humungously long and disorderly, and otherwise a very detailed critera would have to be written and agreed upon by many editors. Have you seen this proposal as to what should determine notability? Let me know what you think. Fabricationary 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The functionality that Nick seeks is already present. It'll also give you a good idea what a mess we'd have if we implement Nick's plan. To see this functionality at work, just go to any date article and click on "What links here." You'll get the list Nick is looking for - and you'll see it's pretty useless. That's what we're trying to avoid happening to the date article itself. Rklawton 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
One additional note: You wrote "The "there are x days remaining" tag is unnecessary, and often wrong. It isn't going to be September 5 in 117 days, and even if it were, I wouldn't care. What's the deal with that, anyway? Does it have to be edited every day?!" Actually, the "there are x days remaining" refers to the number of days until the end of the year, not the number of days from the current date to the future date. These numbers never have to be updated (as leap year figures are also included) :). Fabricationary 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh! Then I guess I just find that tag unnecessary and ambiguous, not unnecessary and wrong.--Nick 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

From an administration/maintenance point of view I can see why "tier C" would be a nightmare. I guess what I'm really driving at though is this: The problem with the notability criteria is that they create a notability bias. As it stands now, there is no place on the wikicalendar to get a "slice of life" -- to get the smaller, more trivial happenings. And if you don't think trivia belongs on these pages, I really disagree with you, because the whole point of these pages IS trivia. I can't think of any reason to check some random date other than something like, "Gee, October 1 is my birthday, I wonder what else happened that day" or "Gosh, what other crazy things happened on April 14 other than the sinking of the Titanic." For pseudo-academic curiosities like these, I think the marriage of Jennifer Aniston to some guy is no less appealing than some bloody skirmish in the Middle East. So I think the ideal date page combines notability and non-notability. In a nutshell, I think the wikicalendar could use some personality.

PS, Kudos to you, Rklawton and Fabricationary, for quick responses and scary-impressive dedication to the site -- I hope my criticism doesn't imply a lack of appreciation! --Nick 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Video game launches

Not being aware of this page, and having been asked to find policy about putting video game launches on days of the year, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Video_game_launches.-gadfium 02:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Archive_3&oldid=1245189441"