![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In going over all the discussions over the last few days and indeed all the discussions on this page, rather than Sandbox an entire page, might I propose right under "Events":
Then all that would be left on the DOY pages are "Events," "Holidays and Observances" and whatever other information is on the page (e.g.: February 29).
And yes, I would say move all births and deaths to those other pages. All of them. (Obviously, political assassinations and such could still be listed in "Events," as they are now.) Two or three admins working together could easily have the new pages set up by this time tomorrow. The more broadly you define the new pages, the more information they're likely to contain. You can then loosen the restrictions on what is and is not notable while still having some standards. Yes, it means there will now be 1,098 pages to watch instead of 366, but realistically, the original 366 DOY pages aren't going to be edited as much. It's very rare that a new holiday or observance is invented, and only once a year might there be a new event. It would give admins less work to do, as they'd be reverting far fewer edits on the 366 main DOY pages, and with broader definitions, fewer edits on the 732 new pages. You don't have to set as many guidelines for restricting information, and none of the pages will be as long as they are now. -- JCaesar ( talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
As there seems to be no objection, I'm running with this proposal. -- JCaesar ( talk) 03:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC here that will impact this project and how events are listed on the DOY pages. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The further you go in history, especially Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, the less exact dates and events are available. Adding events from those periods even though the notability is "on the edge" might enhance the reader's experience and let her know that "something" happened even in those "dark ages". Certainly, starting with 1600s up, one should filter more and more the events of importance since we have exponentially more information. Maybe being a history buff and with a passion for Antiquity and Middle Ages periods I am biased here. Most "day articles" have a plethora of events starting with 1700s but some almost nothing before, like nothing must have happened in the past on that date. This can be misleading and unfair to past cultures or to parts of the world which lost their importance today. Sometimes I like to fill in those "earlier", maybe more obscure events, but of importance, in such articles. Hopefully some of these events from long time ago will make it to the WP main page/On this day since it is quite interesting trivia. Maybe WP:DOY could include this idea of being more (exponentially) lenient with events from long time ago, as a suggestion, if it is agreeable.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's probably already handled in WP:MOS but I think there should be a guideline here limiting stupid over-linking to irrelevant generic topics. GoldenRing ( talk) 11:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
An RFC has been started here to discuss the continued use of the horizontal line separating External links and the Months template in the days of the year pages. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I added a line to the births/deaths section saying "Non-human living beings with their own article can be listed as well." This is the policy on the various "deaths in" pages and would seem reasonable to include here. Since the edit was bold, I figured it best to start a discussion of it. This edit was prompted by a comment on Talk:April_4#Grumpy_Cat. To be honest, I can see where people might be concerned that the DOTY lists will be overrun with non-human births and deaths, but given that we already don't have relatively many humans listed, i don't foresee anyone rushing to add tons of non-humans. Let me know what you think. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir ( talk • contribs)
I see that airplane crashes have been discussed in the past. I noticed a lot of listings of minor crashes and even larger ones, but they don't see to be notable enough to include (e.g., June 2 and June 1. Figured I'd see if others agree before doing much more. Also been some small scale shootings that don't seem to pass muster either. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: the start of the Olympics or Commonwealth Games or FIFA does not seem notable enough to list on DOY pages. Wikipedia:Days_of_the_year#The_rise_and_fall_of_countries.2Fglobal_movements only mentions listing the first occurrences. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The word "transportation" (and "transport") do not appear in the archives. Please point to a discussion resulting in consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Deb - Why are you removing entries from June 11? Per WP:BIRTHDOY, if the person has an article, they are notable enough for inclusion. WP:RECENTISM does not apply here as this is a list of all notable births, deaths, and events on a given day. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith on all sides here, shall we? There's a tension between editors who want these lists to be complete (i.e. anyone with a wikipedia article) and editors who want these lists to reflect some kind of selection criteria so that they're small enough to not overwhelm the rest of the content on these pages. There was a discussion about this quite a while ago ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year/Archive_1#Births_and_deaths) where I proposed creating an automated way to maintain complete lists. Is it time to discuss this again and perhaps actually implement it? I thought then, and still think now, that the tension between "complete lists" vs. "selected entries" cannot be resolved unless separate complete lists are created first. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone opposed to splitting the current lists into individual articles "People born on ..." and "People who died on ...", with the criteria for inclusion on those pages being "wikipedia page exists"? Pending a consensus for a selective criteria for direct inclusion on the DOY pages, what would be left is simply a link to the complete list. -- Rick Block ( talk) 23:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Right now, the Italian Wikipedia has an interesting approach to births/dates. Essentially, what they do is the one that's being proposed here: separate pages for births and deaths (see it:Nati il 13 febbraio for an example). Basically, each page is updated using bots, so that any person with a known birthday or date of death is automatically added to the relevant pages. One thing with the pages is that, inherently, the Italian Wikipedia has an Italian systemic bias so the most numerous nationality listed in said articles are Italians. However, the balance there is better than in English Wikipedia articles: whereas probably about half of people listed on date articles on the English Wikipedia are from English-speaking countries, the majority of people listed on Italian Wikipedia date articles are from non-Italian speaking nations, notably Americans, Germans, and other Europeans. The only ones that are lacking are Asians in general. A category could be fine too, when bots are used.
Perhaps we could do compromise of some sort? We modify the current status quo in which date articles have a listing of births and deaths, but with a rather strict inclusion criteria to counter systemic bias (I'm in favor of what was mentioned above, biographies with at least five interwiki links. We could also add another criteria: at least three of those interwiki links must be substantial), then have a "See also" link to either a bot-updated page or a bot-updated category (whatever consensus decides is the right approach) which lists all the relevant people. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, slightly off-topic to this discussion, but would it be alright to also include in date articles people whose years of birth or death are unknown? They could be listed at the end of sections, after the most recent year (too see what I mean, refer to it:Nati il 13 febbraio or ja:2月13日). Keeping ages secret is surprisingly common among lesser known celebrities in the United States, as well as, and notably, among celebrities in Japan. If my proposal is accepted, then said people can be included in year articles despite not having confirmed years of birth. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If this is the criteria that's being discussed, then I'm in favour of a bot-generated list, but to be all-inclusive. No censoriship. WP:N is the criteria used for articles and many lists. It can also apply to lists of deaths and births. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Support Narutolovehinata5's more limited suggestion based on the Italian method. These sorts of categories become entirely useless if every single person who meets the notability standards could be added. And then let us set very strict standards for which people may go on the main page. How about ten people from the last decade, ten from the twenty years before that, ten from the fifty before that, and so on? These particular numbers are obviously only loosely suggested. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a missing birth year being a problem. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deb-You are relying on the acts of one or more editors. Not RSs -- in fact many of these non-English wikis lack RS sourcing, and many more lack RS sourcing other than sourcing in English. Not views by viewers reading the English wikipedia (which in articles you delete can run into the thousands or tens of thousands per month). Instead -- just a lone editor, writing one or more wikis, without any refs, or without any non-English refs ... for you determine whether an article is notable enough to be reflected. Is this opposite day?
Worse--You are relying on one or more editors writing one or more (no more than nine) wikis. Wikipedia does not rely on wikis.
And the action of one editor writing a wiki certainly does not make a person notable by long-established wikipedia principles.
I disagree strongly with your action here, believe it lacks the proper discussion and consensus, and believe it flies in the face of long-established wikipedia principles. Epeefleche ( talk) 04:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Deb. If the pruning taking place is "in accordance with guidelines" and you're "removing entries for celebrities with 0-4 articles in other languages", that criteria must be part of the guideline. If consensus doesn't exist to put it in the guideline, then consensus doesn't exist to continue the activity. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, all. I've spent the weekend following this conversation and some of the archived ones regarding who should and should not be considered notable enough for inclusion on the DOY pages. There is currently an Inspire Campaign proposal under review to have a project dedicated to adding more women to DOY pages, as they are under-represented with respect to men. Full disclosure, I have applied for funding to be the project manager. If it's funded, I'll spend a lot of time over the next six months dedicated to that. If it's not funded, I'll still work on it, just not as much.
I have yet to edit DOY pages, though two editors have started. I've simply been making up a list of women to be included. I've been following the stated guidelines for inclusion. Going through the list again, some of the articles are stubs, so I can remove them from the list before they get added to DOY pages and avoid that headache.
I want to avoid making trouble for this project with incorrect edits and overloading reviewers. I've updated instructions on the project page to include not putting births and deaths under "Events". I can also add that having a stub article can be considered insufficient for inclusion in DOY pages. Does anyone here have other recommendations?
On a separate but related note, the DOY project itself appeals to me and I'd like to join. Is there something I can help with? Natalie Bueno Vasquez ( talk) 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm sure anyone reading this has some degree of buy-in as to what this policy currently says, and I respect that, a lot. I look forward to your feedback on all the changes I'm about to make in the coming days and, perhaps, weeks. But this guideline, as written, projects a ridiculous Western Civilization bias both in time and space, even to the point of contradicting itself.
For example, the Magna Carta, a treaty made by one king in a backwater European nation (but English speaking!) is suggested as notable; yet the guideline meanwhile professes that, in any other case, such a treaty would require notice around the entirety of the globe, which was barely even possible when the Magna Carta was written back in the year 1215.
Likewise did the early Arabs know about the Incas, or vice versa? We'd have to delete nearly every article from our almanac — and per WP:5P we are supposedly an almanac — on the current basis of events, persons, etc. not being "worldwide" nota ble.
I mean no offence, but having pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes, I would hope you could agree with me that having a naked Emperor rummaging around our project is not a good thing.
Per WP:BOLD when I see a mess such as this, I clean it up. I've been known in the past to be a little overzealous, so I implore y'all to help keep me on track throughout this obviously necessary task.
Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7 talk 08:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
President Mamnoon Hussain administered the oath in a rite attended by means of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, 3 services chiefs and federal ministers.
He will determine a number of the leader justices who've served the briefest of tenures. Supreme Court judges retire once they meet the required age prohibit.
Justice Khawaja succeeds outgoing Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Nasirul Mulk who had an illustrious judicial occupation.
On September 10, 2015, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali will likely be sworn in as the chief justice to carry the coveted slot for 15 months.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja was born on September 10, 1950, in Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. He did his graduation in arts in 1971 from the FC College, Lahore, and LLB from the Punjab University Law College, Lahore in 1973.
He then got a Masters (LLM) level from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1975. Thereafter, he was enrolled as advocate of the High Court in 1975 and as advocate of the Supreme Court in 1985. He remained in legal practice till his appointment as a judge of the Lahore High Court on April 21, 1999.
Justice Khawaja resigned his constitutional tenure on March 19, 2007 after the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry via army dictator Pervez Musharraf. He then remained Professor of Law on the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and headed the Department of Law and Policy till his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court on June five, 2009. Zemtvs ( talk) 23:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Zemtvs Zemtvs ( talk) 23:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
At this moment, there's a pending change to July 31 in which the birth of Harry Potter is added. There seems to have been a tiny bit of discussion about adding fictional characters to these birth/death lists back in 2009, but nothing more recent. Is this something that should be kept? Cannolis ( talk) 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Can editors weigh in if 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence is notable enough to appear in 16 DOY articles? Pinging Asarelah as a courtesy. -- NeilN talk to me 03:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In going over all the discussions over the last few days and indeed all the discussions on this page, rather than Sandbox an entire page, might I propose right under "Events":
Then all that would be left on the DOY pages are "Events," "Holidays and Observances" and whatever other information is on the page (e.g.: February 29).
And yes, I would say move all births and deaths to those other pages. All of them. (Obviously, political assassinations and such could still be listed in "Events," as they are now.) Two or three admins working together could easily have the new pages set up by this time tomorrow. The more broadly you define the new pages, the more information they're likely to contain. You can then loosen the restrictions on what is and is not notable while still having some standards. Yes, it means there will now be 1,098 pages to watch instead of 366, but realistically, the original 366 DOY pages aren't going to be edited as much. It's very rare that a new holiday or observance is invented, and only once a year might there be a new event. It would give admins less work to do, as they'd be reverting far fewer edits on the 366 main DOY pages, and with broader definitions, fewer edits on the 732 new pages. You don't have to set as many guidelines for restricting information, and none of the pages will be as long as they are now. -- JCaesar ( talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
As there seems to be no objection, I'm running with this proposal. -- JCaesar ( talk) 03:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC here that will impact this project and how events are listed on the DOY pages. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The further you go in history, especially Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, the less exact dates and events are available. Adding events from those periods even though the notability is "on the edge" might enhance the reader's experience and let her know that "something" happened even in those "dark ages". Certainly, starting with 1600s up, one should filter more and more the events of importance since we have exponentially more information. Maybe being a history buff and with a passion for Antiquity and Middle Ages periods I am biased here. Most "day articles" have a plethora of events starting with 1700s but some almost nothing before, like nothing must have happened in the past on that date. This can be misleading and unfair to past cultures or to parts of the world which lost their importance today. Sometimes I like to fill in those "earlier", maybe more obscure events, but of importance, in such articles. Hopefully some of these events from long time ago will make it to the WP main page/On this day since it is quite interesting trivia. Maybe WP:DOY could include this idea of being more (exponentially) lenient with events from long time ago, as a suggestion, if it is agreeable.-- Codrin.B ( talk) 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's probably already handled in WP:MOS but I think there should be a guideline here limiting stupid over-linking to irrelevant generic topics. GoldenRing ( talk) 11:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
An RFC has been started here to discuss the continued use of the horizontal line separating External links and the Months template in the days of the year pages. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I added a line to the births/deaths section saying "Non-human living beings with their own article can be listed as well." This is the policy on the various "deaths in" pages and would seem reasonable to include here. Since the edit was bold, I figured it best to start a discussion of it. This edit was prompted by a comment on Talk:April_4#Grumpy_Cat. To be honest, I can see where people might be concerned that the DOTY lists will be overrun with non-human births and deaths, but given that we already don't have relatively many humans listed, i don't foresee anyone rushing to add tons of non-humans. Let me know what you think. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir ( talk • contribs)
I see that airplane crashes have been discussed in the past. I noticed a lot of listings of minor crashes and even larger ones, but they don't see to be notable enough to include (e.g., June 2 and June 1. Figured I'd see if others agree before doing much more. Also been some small scale shootings that don't seem to pass muster either. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: the start of the Olympics or Commonwealth Games or FIFA does not seem notable enough to list on DOY pages. Wikipedia:Days_of_the_year#The_rise_and_fall_of_countries.2Fglobal_movements only mentions listing the first occurrences. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The word "transportation" (and "transport") do not appear in the archives. Please point to a discussion resulting in consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Deb - Why are you removing entries from June 11? Per WP:BIRTHDOY, if the person has an article, they are notable enough for inclusion. WP:RECENTISM does not apply here as this is a list of all notable births, deaths, and events on a given day. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith on all sides here, shall we? There's a tension between editors who want these lists to be complete (i.e. anyone with a wikipedia article) and editors who want these lists to reflect some kind of selection criteria so that they're small enough to not overwhelm the rest of the content on these pages. There was a discussion about this quite a while ago ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year/Archive_1#Births_and_deaths) where I proposed creating an automated way to maintain complete lists. Is it time to discuss this again and perhaps actually implement it? I thought then, and still think now, that the tension between "complete lists" vs. "selected entries" cannot be resolved unless separate complete lists are created first. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone opposed to splitting the current lists into individual articles "People born on ..." and "People who died on ...", with the criteria for inclusion on those pages being "wikipedia page exists"? Pending a consensus for a selective criteria for direct inclusion on the DOY pages, what would be left is simply a link to the complete list. -- Rick Block ( talk) 23:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Right now, the Italian Wikipedia has an interesting approach to births/dates. Essentially, what they do is the one that's being proposed here: separate pages for births and deaths (see it:Nati il 13 febbraio for an example). Basically, each page is updated using bots, so that any person with a known birthday or date of death is automatically added to the relevant pages. One thing with the pages is that, inherently, the Italian Wikipedia has an Italian systemic bias so the most numerous nationality listed in said articles are Italians. However, the balance there is better than in English Wikipedia articles: whereas probably about half of people listed on date articles on the English Wikipedia are from English-speaking countries, the majority of people listed on Italian Wikipedia date articles are from non-Italian speaking nations, notably Americans, Germans, and other Europeans. The only ones that are lacking are Asians in general. A category could be fine too, when bots are used.
Perhaps we could do compromise of some sort? We modify the current status quo in which date articles have a listing of births and deaths, but with a rather strict inclusion criteria to counter systemic bias (I'm in favor of what was mentioned above, biographies with at least five interwiki links. We could also add another criteria: at least three of those interwiki links must be substantial), then have a "See also" link to either a bot-updated page or a bot-updated category (whatever consensus decides is the right approach) which lists all the relevant people. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, slightly off-topic to this discussion, but would it be alright to also include in date articles people whose years of birth or death are unknown? They could be listed at the end of sections, after the most recent year (too see what I mean, refer to it:Nati il 13 febbraio or ja:2月13日). Keeping ages secret is surprisingly common among lesser known celebrities in the United States, as well as, and notably, among celebrities in Japan. If my proposal is accepted, then said people can be included in year articles despite not having confirmed years of birth. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If this is the criteria that's being discussed, then I'm in favour of a bot-generated list, but to be all-inclusive. No censoriship. WP:N is the criteria used for articles and many lists. It can also apply to lists of deaths and births. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Support Narutolovehinata5's more limited suggestion based on the Italian method. These sorts of categories become entirely useless if every single person who meets the notability standards could be added. And then let us set very strict standards for which people may go on the main page. How about ten people from the last decade, ten from the twenty years before that, ten from the fifty before that, and so on? These particular numbers are obviously only loosely suggested. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a missing birth year being a problem. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deb-You are relying on the acts of one or more editors. Not RSs -- in fact many of these non-English wikis lack RS sourcing, and many more lack RS sourcing other than sourcing in English. Not views by viewers reading the English wikipedia (which in articles you delete can run into the thousands or tens of thousands per month). Instead -- just a lone editor, writing one or more wikis, without any refs, or without any non-English refs ... for you determine whether an article is notable enough to be reflected. Is this opposite day?
Worse--You are relying on one or more editors writing one or more (no more than nine) wikis. Wikipedia does not rely on wikis.
And the action of one editor writing a wiki certainly does not make a person notable by long-established wikipedia principles.
I disagree strongly with your action here, believe it lacks the proper discussion and consensus, and believe it flies in the face of long-established wikipedia principles. Epeefleche ( talk) 04:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Deb. If the pruning taking place is "in accordance with guidelines" and you're "removing entries for celebrities with 0-4 articles in other languages", that criteria must be part of the guideline. If consensus doesn't exist to put it in the guideline, then consensus doesn't exist to continue the activity. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, all. I've spent the weekend following this conversation and some of the archived ones regarding who should and should not be considered notable enough for inclusion on the DOY pages. There is currently an Inspire Campaign proposal under review to have a project dedicated to adding more women to DOY pages, as they are under-represented with respect to men. Full disclosure, I have applied for funding to be the project manager. If it's funded, I'll spend a lot of time over the next six months dedicated to that. If it's not funded, I'll still work on it, just not as much.
I have yet to edit DOY pages, though two editors have started. I've simply been making up a list of women to be included. I've been following the stated guidelines for inclusion. Going through the list again, some of the articles are stubs, so I can remove them from the list before they get added to DOY pages and avoid that headache.
I want to avoid making trouble for this project with incorrect edits and overloading reviewers. I've updated instructions on the project page to include not putting births and deaths under "Events". I can also add that having a stub article can be considered insufficient for inclusion in DOY pages. Does anyone here have other recommendations?
On a separate but related note, the DOY project itself appeals to me and I'd like to join. Is there something I can help with? Natalie Bueno Vasquez ( talk) 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm sure anyone reading this has some degree of buy-in as to what this policy currently says, and I respect that, a lot. I look forward to your feedback on all the changes I'm about to make in the coming days and, perhaps, weeks. But this guideline, as written, projects a ridiculous Western Civilization bias both in time and space, even to the point of contradicting itself.
For example, the Magna Carta, a treaty made by one king in a backwater European nation (but English speaking!) is suggested as notable; yet the guideline meanwhile professes that, in any other case, such a treaty would require notice around the entirety of the globe, which was barely even possible when the Magna Carta was written back in the year 1215.
Likewise did the early Arabs know about the Incas, or vice versa? We'd have to delete nearly every article from our almanac — and per WP:5P we are supposedly an almanac — on the current basis of events, persons, etc. not being "worldwide" nota ble.
I mean no offence, but having pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes, I would hope you could agree with me that having a naked Emperor rummaging around our project is not a good thing.
Per WP:BOLD when I see a mess such as this, I clean it up. I've been known in the past to be a little overzealous, so I implore y'all to help keep me on track throughout this obviously necessary task.
Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7 talk 08:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
President Mamnoon Hussain administered the oath in a rite attended by means of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, 3 services chiefs and federal ministers.
He will determine a number of the leader justices who've served the briefest of tenures. Supreme Court judges retire once they meet the required age prohibit.
Justice Khawaja succeeds outgoing Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Nasirul Mulk who had an illustrious judicial occupation.
On September 10, 2015, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali will likely be sworn in as the chief justice to carry the coveted slot for 15 months.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja was born on September 10, 1950, in Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. He did his graduation in arts in 1971 from the FC College, Lahore, and LLB from the Punjab University Law College, Lahore in 1973.
He then got a Masters (LLM) level from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1975. Thereafter, he was enrolled as advocate of the High Court in 1975 and as advocate of the Supreme Court in 1985. He remained in legal practice till his appointment as a judge of the Lahore High Court on April 21, 1999.
Justice Khawaja resigned his constitutional tenure on March 19, 2007 after the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry via army dictator Pervez Musharraf. He then remained Professor of Law on the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and headed the Department of Law and Policy till his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court on June five, 2009. Zemtvs ( talk) 23:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Zemtvs Zemtvs ( talk) 23:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
At this moment, there's a pending change to July 31 in which the birth of Harry Potter is added. There seems to have been a tiny bit of discussion about adding fictional characters to these birth/death lists back in 2009, but nothing more recent. Is this something that should be kept? Cannolis ( talk) 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Can editors weigh in if 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence is notable enough to appear in 16 DOY articles? Pinging Asarelah as a courtesy. -- NeilN talk to me 03:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)