![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
It appears that the existing OTD links for Canada are no longer valid. If it's not just a short server outage, all of those links will need to be removed from the pages. Selection of a replacement should be discussed here. Link-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The entire site sympatico.ca has been changed to "the look" and with a redirect to the front page. Can this link be removed until a replacement can be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.27.29 ( talk) 12:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion needing your input. The nearest precedent I could find was DoY in Baseball which didn't the most definitive outcome. Thanks for your attention. Bazj ( talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Each date should have a list of Movies that premiered on this date.
Similar concepts would apply to books, video games, cars, and other things released on the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionsdude148 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that there is a bit more content to this page, where should the content that falls outside the usual sections go? A lot of it is tacked onto the start of the "Births" section. I think this info should go up in it's own section before the "Events" section. Thoughts? -- Chuq (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The entry in content under births for the date of July 15 has a listing for Archduke Ernest of Austria. This is incorrect, his true birthday is June 15, 1553. The bio page for Archduke Ernest does have the correct birth date.
Also, in the list of birth dates for June 15, Archduke Ernest of Austria is missing. Gingergoodrich ( talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
HELP! I'm trying to add, Catherine Of Austria, Archduchess Of Austria, to the Death content of February, 10,1524. However, in my attempt each time I try to add her, the list turn red and tells me there is no article for Catherine of Austria. There is an article and also she's listed in Births for July 24, 1468.I know there's a movement to add more female names in Days of the Year. Please help. Gingergoodrich ( talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
On the page for "February 22" you have Frederic Chopin as being born that day, but the wiki article on Chopin says March 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.253.31 ( talk) 01:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
this line links to Hugh Walpole the writer, I'm certain it should link to Robert Walpole the politician Carltwobob ( talk) 12:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Robert_Walpole
186.31.83.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added an entry to the Deaths section of July 1 for Cecil the lion [1]. I fixed a formatting problem, and the entry was removed by @ MB:. (Which is fine, I had doubts about the notability of Cecil's death anyway).
While the page notice says "...only for people..." (and I was originally going to remove the entry on that basis), there are plenty of exceptions, not least Overdose (horse) just a few lines up from the Cecil entry. This has been discussed at here several times, and none of the archived discussions appear to come to a consensus that an occasional notable animal birth/death should be prohibited, or conversely, allowed. OTOH, some have clearly been permitted in practice.
So I'm first trying to figure out what the policy is. If they should not be included in the lists of births and deaths, then a general cleanup effort should me made to eliminate all of those entries in all of the DoY articles (and possibly some of the other calendrical lists as well), or at least move them to the "events" section.
If animals are permissible in the births/deaths sections, a change to the wording of the page notice would be in order. And even if not, a change to the page notice saying "notable animal births and deaths belong in the events section", would probably be a good idea. Rwessel ( talk) 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
"619 - Emperor Gaozu allowed the assassination of a khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate by Eastern Turkic rivals, one of the earliest events in the Tang campaigns against the Western Turks."
This is very dubious and should not be posted on the main page of Wikipedia. Tong Yabghu Qaghan (ruled 618-628) wasn't assassinated in 619 and the source didn't point out which qan (or other guests) was assassinated. The source did NOT at all claim any qaghan was assassinated. -- 146.111.30.193 ( talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
November 10th is going to be the first World Keratoconus Day. what are the requirements to have it added to the November 10 article? k18s ( talk) 07:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
With most projects seeming to move away from the archaic – why is this project still using it instead of the simpler "–"? Less coding would seem to be better. I'm asking because I came across a day of the year article and ran it through the usual wikipedia ndash correction filter and got reverted. It just seemed strange since most of the sports projects use a simple "–" to handle things. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
My private endeavour is nearing completion. You can read about it here. So far I've updated links up to the year 1600. As you can see in the chart below the result is a dent regarding the 17th century; in section Births and Deaths, 17th century persons are currently underrepresented in the date pages.
That's why I've decided to extend the project until the year 1699 end then call it a day. I expect to add another 500 notable persons to the Births section alone (and even more edits correcting errors/discrepancies).
Future plans
Project
'All Who Are Born Must Die'
I noticed that the number of exact birth dates stated in
year pages are catching up and overtaking death dates from the late Middle Ages onwards. The entries in the Births sections outnumber those in the Deaths section greatly, sometimes [
by a factor of 5 or more]. I suspect that contributors often omit to add the corresponding date of death after stating a person's date of birth on a year page. (Chart shows outdated numbers):
I will write some software to automatically check for these omitted entries and add them to the Deaths section of the year pages. After that I will insert them into the matching DOY page. In most cases the notability will be not questioned since already an approved entry exists in the Birth section of the corresponding DOY page.
Ongoing activities
Cheers, Mill 1 ( talk) 10:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is this put in at the introduction? It is completely arbitrary in that the 400 year window defines its distribution. It's therefore up there with numerology and should really be deleted. I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently, but it really annoys me as it is generally useless. Donebythesecondlaw ( talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Are people watching here? I have an important request! Very important! Oh, yes. Very. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a proposal I would like this project to consider.
Since 2016 I've been focussing on improving the DOY- and Year-pages, especially on the pre-1700's entries in the Birth- and Deaths sections. To that end I created an application to help spot & fix errors and generate notable entries that were missing. You can read about it on my
user page.
As a side effect I noticed that a lot of un(der)referenced and insufficiently notable entries exist in the DOY-pages from the 1500's onwards; many articles are stubs, are un(der)referenced and/or have very little content. These entries do not qualify and should be removed from the DOY-pages.
I realised that with a little added programming [1] it should be possible to identify these births-/deaths entries automatically. This could help cleaning up WP:DAYS articles immensly. I've been thinking about the way to go about it. I'm aware of the ongoing discussions about notability (and verifiability) so I realise that it will be impossible to come up with an algorithm to perfectly spot entries that are do not qualify for WP:DAYS. However, also in light of current discussions, I think that following rule set would identify entries eligible for removal from WP:DAYS with a high probability:
I welcome suggestions to better spot unqualified DOY entries. The idea is to generate a table containing a list of entries that meet these conditions.
I would like the project members' thoughts on this. Would you be willing to use the proposed table as a tool for DOY-trimming and review regarding existing Births- and Deaths entries?
Mill 1 (
talk)
09:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm struggling a bit defining the
'rule set' that will automatically identify existing entries that don't qualify for
WP:DAYS. So far I've come up with a number of criteria but I would welcome the project's members suggestions.
To make my question clear I've created a sample spreadsheet showing all DOY Births- en Deaths entries of January (year > 1600). Next table shows several properties of the articles linked to from
January 1:
As you can see the table shows properties like page size (in number of characters in the wikitext), number of external links etcetera. From this data it's obvious that a lot of existing entries have no place in
WP:DAYS based on
WP:N and
WP:V and should be removed.
Using filters you can zoom in on entries that should not qualify for being listed in DOY-pages. For example: Use the filter in column F to review entries that contain less than 1500 characters (see picture) or use a combination of filters/sorts. The idea is that by experimenting this way we can come up with a rule set that can spot unqualified entries with a high probability. Maybe other properties or criteria exist I didn't think of.
If agreed upon I could generate a list of entries that should be removed from
WP:DAYS. I could even automate that manual process but only if there is enough consensus about and trust in the defined rule set.
You can download the Excel file
here (yes, it's safe).
Please state Oppose if you don't think that a rule set can be created to define articles that do not qualify for DOY-listing. State your arguments for your opposition.
Looking forward to your suggestions.
Mill 1 (
talk)
15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Because of the *overwhelming* response so far I suspect that project members are a bit hesitative to download and open the shared Excel file. That's why, in a final attempt to get things going, I created a
wikitable. The table is an excerpt of the data in the Excel file. It shows entries that are currently listed in DOY-pages but do not qualify for it. Hopefully the excerpt will make clear to what kind of articles DOY-pages are linking to and how much they are in need of trimming.
You can find the sample entries
here.
The February 2 page lists the birthday for Pat Sullivan as, of course, February 2, but also as the year 1887. When you click on the link for " Pat Sullivan", the resulting Wiki (and almost all of the citations) say February 22, 1885.
I believe the February 2 page is in error, and Pat Sullivan's birthday should be moved to the February 22 page and the year corrected to 1885.
Thanks Rodger Sunderland 108.31.204.64 ( talk) 00:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The guidelines at WP:DAYS#Style state:
"References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles. However, references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles and not external links."
This seems to have been added years ago and is now taken as an obvious tenet. However it seems to fly in the face of WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN. I propose that this be changed to the wording from WP:BURDEN:
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
I think the exemption from references should be struck from this guideline.
collapsed for readability
|
---|
Thx
@Mufka, I did not notice the exemption guideline already had been changed. As this is my first project discussion I am bit puzzled what constitutes project consensus. Regarding this subject a proposal was made, 3 members supported it and within 5 days the guideline was changed (and apparently enforced as of yesterday). Shouldn't there be some kind of deadline before which project members should respond? And after proposal adoption shouldn't there be an announcement when the guideline will be enforced, especially if it has a massive impact like this one? The guideline should be reverted since there is no consensus regarding this proposal.
Mill 1 (
talk)
08:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious, and Toddst1's actions seem to have been perfectly appropriate and in good faith. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Blueboar: I understand what you mean about changing articles. But please keep in mind that nothing in this process prevents removal of controversial content. Challenged content, per WP:MINREF, requires inline citation before it can be replaced. There's no reason to require that all 100,000+ birthdates, death dates, and events have an inline citation. You're giving free license for somebody to disrupt the encyclopedia by blanking these articles. AlexEng( TALK) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged(emphasis mine). If something seems unreliable to you remove it. It then can't be re-added without a source. I don't see why we need a word for word repetition of WP:BURDEN in the WikiProject style guidelines; the existing language is more helpful. AlexEng( TALK) 17:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It's clarifying that not every statement requires a referencebut that's not at all what it says. It says:
References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles.That's a blanket statement which, taken at face value, directly contradicts WP:V's requirement for inline citations for some types of statements. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Is this the proper venue to be having a discussion on this subject? I would hate for the RfC to run its course only for people to dismiss its results because of WP:CONLIMITED. What's the proper course of action? AlexEng( TALK) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Picture this, each DOY usually has about 200-300 lines. Imagine referencing every single line in a DOY, you will have a ref of another 200-300 lines, a mirror for each content. Each DOY will blow its size 2 times the original size.
I think it is extremely redundant and unnecessary. The original rule (before the changes on October 17, 2017) is that there is no need to place ref to every single line in DOY, as long as the ref is provided in the linked main article. It has always been like this for 10+ years. I respect the proposed intention, however, is this really achievable (given the extreme dynamics of the DOY articles)? is the pressure for compliance really worth it? would it help? 366 DOY each with 200-300 lines means 109,800 new refs should be added, which IMO is extremely redundant given each content actually already well-referenced in the linked main article in the first place (with multi-refs!). What will happen if the project stops in the middle just because we couldn't cope with the dynamic changes usually associated with DOY articles?
In my opinion, the task list of Ensure each article has ==References== {{reflist}} added in the project page is very difficult to be implemented and would introduce major changes in the entire 366 DOY article as well as potential inconsistency throughout the 366 DOY articles for a long period of time. This is the first major change for 366 wiki articles after a decade.
To be honest, I proposed to have the rule of Ensure each article has References (reflist) added removed. I think it doesn't make sense and would cause quite a mess in the run. Now I just read it (I missed it!), I actually strongly oppose the proposal of Exemption from WP:V discussed above. It would create a big burden to whoever responsible for completing this not enforceable project. As you may all know, each of the DOY articles is one of the most dynamic articles in Wikipedia, it is keep changed by random users on every single day.
What are your opinions? Is this "project" of referencing really worth it? Let's open discussion for the sake of improvement?-- Rochelimit ( talk) 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I supported the idea to reference each line. I try to help out with things that I support, because it is a bit hypocritical if I do not. So for a week or so, I would click on five or so entries, looking for the citation for the date entry. Maybe one out of five times I would actually find a citation, and then add it to the DOY article. Did not take long for me to give up on that project; I thought that most of the entries were cited in the article as it gets claimed here time and time again, but through my moderate sample size that was not the case. I ended up abandoning the effort when I found that out. Kees08 (Talk) 20:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As we would say in the
Netherlands: this discussion has a very long beard by now. First and foremost: I understand perfectly why
Toddst1 started his initiative almost a year ago. I am also passionate about the quality of this encyclopedia,
WP:DOY in particular, and am also frustrated about the number of DOY-entries that are wrong or that link to crappy bio's. Hell, I even launched a
failed initiative to get rid of entries that link to
unreferenced and unnotable articles.
Although I'm a bit reluctant to enter yet another new discussion on this topic I'll state my top 5 reasons why I believe that the guideline requiring inline citation for every DOY-entry was misguided.
As has been pointed out; that has not been done since September 2017 and it never will.
That's my two-cents. I will follow this discussion closely and with interest. Mill 1 ( talk) 20:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
My plan is probably to bring this discussion to another level, perhaps another village pump?
:It's important that every statement in Wikipedia have a source -- preferably the best that exists, but even a crappy one means editors & readers can know where the statement came from, & nudge them to replacing that crappy source with a better one. And I believe that even lists should have sources. (I've been spending the last two years providing sources for List of Roman consuls, so I am not only putting my money where my mouth is I also know what kind of chore that is. And how good it feels to make something in Wikipedia solidly reliable.) That said, it's a reasonable assumption that having the information to have a subject included in a list like DOY -- or its partner, the Year pages -- should be provided in the linked article. So why not propose a new rule: All articles linked to a DOY page must provide a source that verifies the event/birth/death did happen on that day -- or the item & relevant article is unlinked. Put the burden of proof on whoever wants to add the article. (Note: I'm assuming here one doesn't add an event/birth/death to a DOY article without the relevant article existing.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Wp:v should be followed, it would work fine if a requirement to "challenge" includes expressing a concern about the verifiability of the uncited item. Then only the entries that were sincerely questioned would need to be cited. North8000 ( talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know this had happened. a) I think there is a significant difference between 'events' and the other subcategories. 'Events' are statements that do not necessarily exist as such elsewhere in Wiki. I can see the necessity for verification if it is not simply a link to an existing article. b) if it is simply a link to an existing article (eg The Fall of Constantinople see below. c) The other categories are simple links to articles in W. They are more like lists or indices. An index in a book does not reference its entries - the references are at the places where the indexed words appear in the book. Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 12:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Heads up to those who care, at some point in the next week I will be at VPP asking for community review of the above initiative giving too much weight to a mere WIkiProject essay. When, IDK as my schedule is quite up in the air for the time being. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
September 30 has James Dean mentioned twice, once under Events and another under Deaths. Is this reasonable? Or should every birth and death be listed under Events also? Shenme ( talk) 21:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:March 15#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages.
--
--
--
22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:May 21#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages.
--
--
--
20:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be good if the list of people born / died on each day was something like:
Year | Name | category | description | death |
---|---|---|---|---|
377 | Arcadius | Historic leader | Byzantine emperor | 408 |
1431 | Pope Alexander VI | Historic leader | Pope | 1503 |
1994 | Craig Murray | Sport | Scottish footballer | |
1995 | Poppy | Entertainment | American singer |
This would make it easy to sort by category or year of death (and people who are still alive), as well as year of birth.
Obviously what categories people go in would take some thinking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjmunro ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Per
#Exemption_from_WP:V above, and because I have been made aware of the situation on
my talk page, I would suggest creating a template, based loosely on {{
More citations needed}}
, to explain the new situation. This template should be placed above all Days-of-the-year articles, or at least above sections about living persons, until references have been added to all the statements.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have been on Wikipedia since 2006, but I'm not much of a joiner. I enjoy looking at today's DOY and then cruising around to interesting articles. I have little or no interest in the births and deaths, but I visit many of the "events" articles. I have always been truly annoyed by "event" listings that I think are too long. Recently, I unilaterally decided to start taking action, and I have been trimming overlong event entries, and in the few cases that the event was not supported by the linked article, I delete it. I then realized that maybe I should find out if my actions are supported by guidelines, and I stumbled upon this project.
I basically look at all entries that are long enough to wrap to a second line on a reasonably-sized desktop page, and then trim out what I consider to be excessive detail. I try fairly hard to leave enough information to let a casual reader know whether or not the event is of interest to the reader, so a few entries are still a bit long after trimming.
So, here's the question: Am I being too aggressive in my trimming? - Arch dude ( talk) 02:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I was planning to add something to the '2018' subpage for January 14 (ie Portal:Current events/2018 January 14). There wasn't a heading it would have fitted under, so I was wondering if there is a list we should be referring to so we make sure we are being consistent? If not, should there be? Moira Paul ( talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Categories for the news items
- Armed conflicts and attacks
- Arts and culture
- Business and economy
- Disasters and accidents
- Health and environment
- International relations
- Law and crime
- Politics and elections
- Science and technology
- Sports
There has recently been a spate of anon IPs adding unreferenced entries to the DOTY articles, and I have protected some of the most popular pages, i.e. the ones around the current date, for a period so that anons can't edit. I have just blocked User:Unknown artist for repeatedly doing the same, despite several warnings on his talk page and a block log as long as my arm. Deb ( talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi on June 15th I want to add the foundation of the UEFA because that day UEFA come to life so the problem is that I want to add it but if I do so I might get into trouble because if a want to reference it, I cannot do it because I'm a mess on this thing of Wikipedia codes and I have been warned several times because of my problem of referencing things I add into the Wikipedia... So my proposal is that I will add it myself and someone who is more skilled than me add the reference. Waiting some kind people who can understand me without threating me like a dumb... Thanks in advance!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeutscherFeuer ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Referring to #Exemption_from_WP:V above, how about creating an event to get this problem fixed? Let's ask project members and interested people to add references to the article about their birthday. Ideally, someone born (or who has started editing on) January 1 would add all the required references to the " January 1" list. In most cases, these are already given in the linked article, can quickly be verified for reliability and then copied to the list. In a few cases, there will be unverified statements, and these should be removed from the linked article and the list. Whenever this happens, we also prove that it was a good idea to require references for the list entries. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
For the record, @ Deb:'s work on this project has been nothing short of awesome. I've awarded her a Spotlight User_talk:Deb#The_Defender_of_the_Wiki_Barnstar. Please keep up the awesome work!! Toddst1 ( talk) 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I was just reverted for an update to May 17 adding year of death for Herman Wouk, who passed today (17 May 2019) at age 103. This is in the subject's article with proper reference to his death date. I have been informed we need the reference in the date page. I do not understand this requirement and as I do not usually edit Dates pages I was not aware. This is daft. Every entry in a date page must have a link to an article in the English Wikipedia (they all do). The corresponding article takes care of asserting notability and it must have a reference for dates of birth and death to be accepted. Is this for real? Almost none of the current entries for May 17 have a reference in that page and I can guarantee this goes for every day and every year page without looking much for it. Shouldn't we then delete all entries that are not referenced? This is a navigation page, informative, and pointing to the corresponding articles, which must be properly referenced. Who came up with this? Am I upset about this? You bet. Can someone please explain the reasoning? And let me know who will start removing all "unreferenced" entries so we start from scratch. -- Alexf (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
name-calling by blocked IP-hopping sockpuppet collapsed
|
---|
|
How is the above guideline intended to be implemented? Now that these articles are no longer exempt from WP:V, are we to go around deleting practically every article maintained by this WikiProject as almost none of them have any references? -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 18:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Any material added after 16 October 2017 lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.-- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Can I add these: {{BTS(band)|BTS}} {{Seventeen (South Korean band)|Seventeen}} Thanks
I want to edit 2013 and 2015 by adding their debut dates. Can I? FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia ( talk) 11:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I learned about the requirement for inline citation on new entries to day-of-year articles just by chance. It appears as though many (most? all?) day-of-year articles are semi-protected. Is it possible to send a mass notification to all editors with pending changes reviewer permissions letting them know about the requirement? Schazjmd (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Many entries in 'Days of the Year' refer to an event but often there is no link to the event described. An example is Jan 2 where the entry under 1942 refers to the capture of Manila but the links are to the city of Manila and the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The links to the 'Philippines_campaign_(1941–1942)' or 'Japanese_occupation_of_the_Philippines' are missing or omitted.
Can we review the entries throughout the section that do not link directly to the sense of the entry? If the event is incidental to any specific page, perhaps it does not merit an entry in 'Days of the Year'. If anything, the occupation of Manila is most historically related to the fall of the Philippines than to the city in isolation. Malchemist ( talk) 04:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I have seen this pop up here and there -- someone will add the subject's race (usually African-American) to the descriptive note on a birthday line. One example is Star Jones on March 24. This seems unnecessary, unclear, and inconsistent.
I have similar qualms about religion, "Jewish" being a commonly seen descriptor that is not needed here. The vast majority of birthday lines include only nationality and occupation (or other brief notability memo). Calling out the fact that someone is not white or Christian seems a bit old-fashioned to me.
What would it take to firm up the rules here and make birthday lines more consistent? Krychek ( talk) 20:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the race or religion should be mentioned if it is one of the main reasons the person is being mentioned but not in general. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. could/should be described as "a leader of the african-american civil-rights movement" , but not as "an african-american leader of the african-american civil-rights movement." Donald Trump would not be described as the 45th caucasian president of the United States. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The term is being disputed at June 1 and I think we should seek a consensus, or at least a compromise. "Race car driver" is an American term and "racing driver" a British one. Looking June 1, we have Ted Field and Bob Christie (both American) as race car, while Martin Brundle, Olivier Tielemans and Jo Gartner (all European) are racing. According to User:Eposty, race car should be universal. On the other hand, User:Deb points out that US terminology is for Americans but also cites the example of Auto_racing#Racing_driver, bearing in mind that "auto racing" is an American term for what the British call "motor racing".
A good compromise might be along the lines of MOS:BCE in that you don't change what is already there unless you gain consensus at the article talk page. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
In the guideline at Wikipedia:Days of the year is the statement: "Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles". This is tagged Template:Specify. I think we do need to expand the statement by saying what is meant by more stringent requirements.
All the birth lists include an excessive number of people who have been fleetingly famous or locally well known during the last twenty to thirty years. I generally find that people born before, say, the Second World War, do have some longer term claim to fame and are noteworthy. The cause of this problem is recentism and it is most apparent in the fields of film, music, TV and sport.
I don't think these lists should include someone who used to be in Coronation Street or someone who played for " The Shakers" in the old Fourth Division, yet you do see these people there, sharing a birthday with an Oscar-winning director or a World Cup winner. They are all notable because of the wider scope of the GNG and so they deserve articles but I really do think we need to narrow the scope of the wiki-calendars to include the Oscar and World Cup winners but exclude the bit part actors and the journeyman footy players.
I would suggest that we insist upon some major achievement for people in these fields who were born since 1960, or maybe 1940, or perhaps in the last century as a whole. For example, starring in a film that was a box office hit or winning a major cinema or TV award like an Oscar or Emmy. In music, winning a Grammy or topping one of the Billboard or UK charts. In sport, winning one of the major titles in sports like boxing, golf or tennis; winning an Olympic gold medal; breaking a world record; playing for a team that wins a world or continental championship; or for a team that wins a major national championship such as the Superbowl or the World Series or one of the English, German, Italian or Spanish football leagues.
I think that if we took this approach we would make it much easier to maintain these articles and, more importantly, we would be making them so much more useful and meaningful for the readers. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Lucas Till was born on the 10th of August 1990. He is not on the list of August 10 birth LISH 0810 ( talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor has been mass adding links to this site to "External links". So, yea or nay? -- Calton | Talk 13:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious as to the purpose and naming of List of historical anniversaries. This article seems to be merely an index of links to specific days of the year. While each of those individual articles note historical events that took place on that day, List of historical anniversaries does not. It is a list of links to days. Seems to be a calendar, essentially. Further "historical anniversaries" is poorly phrased, if not redundant. An anniversary necessarily notes something in the past (historical). If anything, this should at least be rephrased as "notable anniversaries", and perhaps the bolder move would be to rename the entire article Index of days of the year. Thoughts? -- ZimZalaBim talk 16:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I’ve noticed — for some of the days in October — that some of the entries refer us to the relevant page from OnThisDay.com.
Which is fair enough.
But can we ALSO start adding the equivalent page from Britannica.com?
I also note we’ve long had entries from the BBC, the New York Times and the Canada Channel.
Is it possible to add the equivalents — if there are any — from Australia and New Zealand?
And possibly India?
I know it would add extra work, but having entries from major English language counties seems only right.
Cuddy2977 ( talk) 16:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I've crunched some numbers, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Analysis of citation issues for date and year articles: while I recommend reading the full analysis to understand where this number comes from, I estimate there are about 120,000 to 130,000 uncited statements in the 366 day articles. Much to think about here – I have a detailed breakdown of what all the numbers are and what I think they mean. Probably worth checking out! jp× g 20:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking through the articles listed in the "brought up to standard" section, I notice that they are not quite consistent in whether they contain inline references for items in the "Holidays and observances" sections, (compare e.g. January 1#Holidays and observances with May 11#Holidays and observances). I don't see anything in the Style section of the project page suggesting that these sections don't require references, but since we appear not to all be on the same page on this issue I thought it worth asking.
My personal view is that these sections do require references. In the few articles I've worked through they have each contained very minor saints and holidays of dubious notability, which I've had to remove as unverifiable.
Best, Wham2001 ( talk) 12:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
-- Suonii180 ( talk) 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
regarding having links to wiki articles that mention them, does that mean they do not have to have a wiki article? E.g. simply being in a list of lesser holidays without any description or further linking is fine? (as well as independent ref. of course). 142.163.195.66 ( talk) 17:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
This day doesn't have a deaths section. I don't know how we should approach this. Creating an empty deaths section isn't really an option so we might need to fill it up before adding it. This would be quite time consuming though. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is formatting of the page "April 19" so different than all others? Any special reason? Ivogusa ( talk) 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Understood. I work with Wikipedia every day. Shold I start changing records into agreed categories or is there going to be an automatic conversion? I could help... Ivogusa ( talk) 06:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
ok, I can work on it but the rules are unclear: I thought we agreed on a uniform form how the page should look like. But April 20 shows: pre-19th century, 1801-1940, 1941-present.
April 19 shows: pre-18th century, 1701-1900, 1901-1978, 1976-present
April 21 shows: pre-19th century, 19th century, 20th century, 21st century
So what are the rules? Can any day have different blocks based on the numbers of entries? Please advice Ivogusa ( talk) 06:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I work on divisions of pages in my free time, but I need to get a green light to continue. I don´t want to do something wrong which will have to be redone later. Please advise Ivogusa ( talk) 07:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the use of a term like "pre-19th century" or "pre-20th century" as a section header is confusing some editors and it would perhaps be better to use "pre-1801" or "pre-1901" instead. This is arguably more readable and it is certainly more specific given that there are people who think the 20th century began in 1900 and ended in 1999.
For spans like 1901–1950 which have specific beginning and end years, they must always be separated by an endash not a hyphen per MOS:YEARRANGE. Again, there are people who don't use or understand the endash.
Also, the {{0}} alignment function should be used whenever there are three-digit years in the same section as four-digit ones. I have yet again just had to revert someone who took these out in order to mis-align the years.
If project members are in agreement with these points, could we please incorporate them into the instructions somewhere? Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Then I suggest we begin by raising a proposal to review and revise both the style guide and the template so that they become credible and useful user guides which meet the needs of the encyclopaedia's readers and also remove editorial confusion. At present, those pages fall well short of expectations and are not fit for purpose, as per the issues raised below. I will bring forward a proposal for discussion, but please allow me some time to work on it. It will be on this page but under a new heading. If anyone has any additional issues or wishes to make any positive suggestions towards improving project standards, please open a new topic below and outline them there. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
According to the project's style guide, "standard date page layout includes the sections: Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, and External links". That is fair enough as those section headings have been in use across all 366 articles for a very long time. The guide does not say anything about sub-section headings and so it must be assumed that these are optional.
The guide does say that "any change to the page layout (my italics) that would be a deviation from the template should be discussed here". But a change to template layout is not the same thing a change to detail. The very purpose of a template is to provide a layout and format guide, not to define detail unless a heading like Events is specified as it is in the guide. The template shows that sub-headings are acceptable and, as a template, it defines accepted formats.
Looking at the examples in the template, they are nonsense. There is a 1600 event in 1601–1900 and a 1600 birth under Pre-1600! How does that help a new editor? The whole thing needs to be reviewed and revised so that it presents a coherent and clear guide for readers and editors. No Great Shaker ( talk) 08:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
As promised, here are my proposals for improvement of this project. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
A fundamental issue with a project of such limited scope – only 366 articles – is that it effectively uses three pages when one would be quite sufficient. According to the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, the page is "meant to be a style guide for date pages". On the same page, there is a section headed "Style" to which the shortcut WP:DOYSTYLE links. But, there are other sections on the page which are not concerned with style. This page needs to begin by addressing the aims of the project, which is the method invariably adopted by other projects.
The shortcut to this project page is WP:DAYS while the equally logical shortcut WP:DOY links to Wikipedia:Days of the year, a separate page which also aims to provide guidelines. This has three section shortcuts: WP:BIRTHDOY and WP:DEATHDOY both link to the "Births and deaths" section, which attempts to address the project's main problem area of excessive listings that are mostly caused by recentism. The other shortcut WP:DOYCITE links to a single short paragraph section that rightly stipulates the need for inline citations.
The third project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template which presents additional problems, some of which have been raised in earlier topics. Given that all 366 articles are long-established with the necessary basic structure in place, a template is superfluous because if any style or usage guidelines need illustration, it is better to refer the reader to an example in a live article (e.g., ask the reader to see 1066 in September_25#Deaths for how to deal with three deaths in the same event). The template issues are the sort of thing that should be addressed at DOY/DAYS – e.g., sub-heading formats; date range compliance with MOS:YEARRANGE; instructions about citation details; etc.
This use of what are effectively three project pages can only (and does) lead to confusion, so the three pages should be combined. This should be achieved by merging DOY into DAYS as an additional section. Integration of DOY into DOYSTYLE isn't practical. This would mean both DAYS and DOY would be shortcuts to the actual project page while DOYSTYLE, DOYCITE, BIRTHDOY and DEATHDOY would continue to serve as section shortcuts. The template should be discarded after any useful points are built into the appropriate sections of DOY/DAYS.
This is currently an unstructured list which needs to be revised for improved understanding. Some of the points in DOYSTYLE should be under DOYCITE or BIRTHDOY (or both). There needs to be better co-ordination across the key sections of the project page and that is another strong reason for there being only one project page.
DOYCITE correctly insists that an inline citation must accompany each new line entry but it needs to be taken further in that the sources named must be reliable and that citations must be presented using an approved format such as cite web, cite book or cite news; or by sfn if the full source is in a bibliography section.
WP:BAREURLS deprecates the use of bare urls and, as this project insists on a citation for each entry, it should also reject any citing a bareurl as these do not provide source information and so the entry is effectively unsourced. The main reasons for proposing deletion of bareurl entries are that there are certain editors who routinely apply them to DOY articles and secondly because the websites have a tendency to be non- WP:RS – e.g., IMDB, blogs, self-published, etc.
Source information varies according to what is available but, where possible, the parameters must include url (if a website), title, author's name (if known), publisher, date or year of publication, isbn (books), bibcode or similar (journals).
This has the appearance of a work in progress. There are a couple of points about noteworthiness in the lead of the current DOY which are not fully reflected in the section. Some thought is needed to determine exactly what is meant by "more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles". In this context, the examples for sport, media and drama do not go far enough. If a footballer has "taken part in multiple international events" that means they are more notable than someone who has played in numerous matches for Crewe Alexandra or whoever, but what if the international has never played in the World Cup or the Euros? Is he then noteworthy enough for inclusion given that there are huge numbers of international sports competitors and the project must be seeking to reduce the volume of 20th century births.
The DOY/DAYS project page should say something about the structure of an article page by mentioning use and purpose of the {{calendar}}, {{This date in recent years}} and {{Day}} templates which are activated by {{PAGENAME}} (i.e., the article's title date). New editors need to know that the use of these three templates is to be taken as read and that they must not be suppressed.
Re the Day template, it should be mentioned that the paragraph it activates in all articles usually forms the entire lead section. Editors should have the option to expand the lead if the date is especially significant for any reason like June 6, July 4 or December 25. If the lead is to be expanded, a new paragraph must be opened for the additional content. It would be as well to include an example of the lead as created by the Day template:
March 31 is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar; 275 days remain until the end of the year.
Some of these points exist as comments on article edit pages and need to be emphasised on the project page:
1. The Events, Births and Deaths sections are mandatory with level 2 headings that exist in all 366 project articles. Do not alter or remove them.
2. Do not add names of people without Wikipedia articles to these lists. Red links are not accepted by this project.
3. Do not trust "this year in history" websites for accurate date information. However, four of these are in the external links on each article page.
4. Do not link multiple occurrences of the same year, just link the first occurrence (per the 1066 example above).
On the current issue of sub-sections within the Events, Births and Deaths listings, the solution can NEVER be "one size fits all". Each article has different requirements according to its content. Some have fairly short Events sections which really do not need to be split. As a rule of thumb, a list of up to 25 entries will not greatly exceed the screen size of a normal laptop. If a list is very long, however, readability becomes an issue and such a list should be sub-divided into sections of moreorless equal length.
If the sub-section heading is a year range, it must comply with MOS:YEARRANGE – for example, "1801–1825" is a correctly formatted range. Incorrect formats include "1801 – 1825" (no spaces), "1801-1825" (no hyphens) and "1801 to 1825" (no words).
It is not always practical to use a year range because of doubts about when the first sub-section begins and how the last one ends. If there are a number of BCE events in a list, it may be wise to place them in a single sub-section headed "Before the Common Era (BCE)" and follow it with a sub-section headed "1 AD–1200" (1200 is just an example, not to be applied literally), so that there is a clear split between BC/BCE and AD/CE. It should be remembered that the titles of all articles about BCE years carry the suffix BC and articles about CE years to 150 (plus some later ones) carry the prefix AD.
Years with three-digit, two-digit or one-digit numbers must be aligned with the four-digit numbers in the same sub-section. This is achieved by using Template:0 before the year number once, twice or three times respectively. For example:
The end period in a list will always be to the present day and consideration must be given to the range of the end period. If it should be the 21st century from 1 January 2001, then the sub-section could be headed simply "21st century". An acceptable alternative would be "2001–present" and this format would apply if the end period is, for example, "1991–present" or "2011–present". While a heading like "2011–" is not incorrect, it is preferable to include "present" to avoid any ambiguity. Do not, however, use an end of range year in the final sub-section – for example, a range ending 2020 excludes 2021.
If feasible, it is probably best that a year range should consist of whole centuries like "1201–1500". If, however, one part of a century has a long list of items, then split the century into two or more sub-sections as in "1801–1850", "1851–1860" and "1861–1900". Because of recentism, the 20th and 21st centuries present considerable difficulties with birth and death lists that have become overgrown with non-noteworthy subjects. In many articles, the 20th century will need to be split unevenly and so successive ranges might be "1946–1960", "1961–1965" and "1966–1990". The whole point about splitting lists into sub-sections is to present our readers with something that is sensible and above all READABLE. Splitting a list of 150 births into sub-sections of three, seventeen and 130 items is neither sensible nor (the third one) readable. Sub-sections and their headings must be tailored to the individual needs of each of the 366 articles.
The project page needs to summarise these sections and templates along the following lines:
That's it, although I'm sure there is much that other people could add. I will keep a watch on this topic but I don't intend to take part in any discussion unless someone should ask me a direct question, especially if any clarification should be needed. I hope this is useful. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Both the test of time and births and deaths guidelines stipulate that being newsworthy is not necessarily noteworthy, and the same must apply to anyone who meets GNG or an SNG. As part of the drive to bring articles up to standard, I think we need to be ruthless with birthdays of sportspeople who haven't done something exceptional.
My sport is football and I'd say, as a rule of thumb, that a footballer must be a long-term international for one of the countries which regularly appears in the World Cup (not just the winners but also Netherlands, Croatia, Mexico, Japan, etc.) and/or have played long-term for one of the major European or South American clubs like Liverpool, Barcelona, Boca Juniors, etc. For example, I've just found a source for Santi Cazorla who obviously qualifies on both counts. On the other hand, I've removed the entries for Ryan France and Olly Lancashire!
You can easily apply similar benchmarks to other top sports such as boxing, baseball, cricket, chess, athletics, golf, NFL, tennis, etc. The individual sports like golf and athletics have their major tournaments, Olympic and world champions. I think, though, that we should remove participants in minor sports such as rugby league, squash, badminton, polo, tiddleywinks and what have you unless, like Birgit Fischer, they have done something really exceptional. Taking rugby league as an example, there's no doubt that someone has been purposely adding its players to these articles and so you see people like Keegan Hipgrave in the lists – there are no less than TEN rugby league players at 1 January alone.
Happy to discuss. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 07:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template#Subsections about a possible change to the structure of these articles and the template. Please participate. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought I'd bring folks' attention to a thread on Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year discussing a major improvement to this project. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I posted this at the (General) Wikipedia Help Desk. I was directed to come here, to this page. My original post is here ---> Wikipedia:Help desk#Article for April 7 date. It states:
So, I was told (at that Help Desk) that this involves the Template {{ Day}} ... and I was referred to this Talk Page. How can we fix / address this error? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've really enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews over the years and now I'm taking a stab at conducting them. If anyone's interested in being interviewed, feel free to contribute here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject days of the year interview draft. It's a great way to educate others about your WikiProject and perhaps get help or new contributors if you need it. I'll see how we go but aim to wrap this up around July 20th.
I invite anyone interested to contribute and look forward to hearing from you, Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | WikiProject Days of the year was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 29 8 29. |
Hi everyone, the interview was published! A template link to the interview (can be archived or placed on this page) is above. Many thanks to @
Willbb234,
Toddst1, and
Suonii180: for contributing their time. For those who contributed, if you'd like you can post a little icon at the top of your talk page to the interview using this code: {{Signpost user topicon|article_name = WikiProject Report|date = September 2021|wikilink = Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-08-29/WikiProject report|action = was interviewed in}}
. Cheers,
Tom (LT) (
talk)
02:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a note to notify WikiProject members that I've slightly altered Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template to follow MOS:DATERANGE; this was probably a mistake in formatting that has been perpetuated over hundreds of pages. All the best, Sdrqaz ( talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
It appears that the existing OTD links for Canada are no longer valid. If it's not just a short server outage, all of those links will need to be removed from the pages. Selection of a replacement should be discussed here. Link-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The entire site sympatico.ca has been changed to "the look" and with a redirect to the front page. Can this link be removed until a replacement can be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.27.29 ( talk) 12:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion needing your input. The nearest precedent I could find was DoY in Baseball which didn't the most definitive outcome. Thanks for your attention. Bazj ( talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Each date should have a list of Movies that premiered on this date.
Similar concepts would apply to books, video games, cars, and other things released on the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionsdude148 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that there is a bit more content to this page, where should the content that falls outside the usual sections go? A lot of it is tacked onto the start of the "Births" section. I think this info should go up in it's own section before the "Events" section. Thoughts? -- Chuq (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The entry in content under births for the date of July 15 has a listing for Archduke Ernest of Austria. This is incorrect, his true birthday is June 15, 1553. The bio page for Archduke Ernest does have the correct birth date.
Also, in the list of birth dates for June 15, Archduke Ernest of Austria is missing. Gingergoodrich ( talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
HELP! I'm trying to add, Catherine Of Austria, Archduchess Of Austria, to the Death content of February, 10,1524. However, in my attempt each time I try to add her, the list turn red and tells me there is no article for Catherine of Austria. There is an article and also she's listed in Births for July 24, 1468.I know there's a movement to add more female names in Days of the Year. Please help. Gingergoodrich ( talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
On the page for "February 22" you have Frederic Chopin as being born that day, but the wiki article on Chopin says March 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.253.31 ( talk) 01:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
this line links to Hugh Walpole the writer, I'm certain it should link to Robert Walpole the politician Carltwobob ( talk) 12:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Robert_Walpole
186.31.83.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added an entry to the Deaths section of July 1 for Cecil the lion [1]. I fixed a formatting problem, and the entry was removed by @ MB:. (Which is fine, I had doubts about the notability of Cecil's death anyway).
While the page notice says "...only for people..." (and I was originally going to remove the entry on that basis), there are plenty of exceptions, not least Overdose (horse) just a few lines up from the Cecil entry. This has been discussed at here several times, and none of the archived discussions appear to come to a consensus that an occasional notable animal birth/death should be prohibited, or conversely, allowed. OTOH, some have clearly been permitted in practice.
So I'm first trying to figure out what the policy is. If they should not be included in the lists of births and deaths, then a general cleanup effort should me made to eliminate all of those entries in all of the DoY articles (and possibly some of the other calendrical lists as well), or at least move them to the "events" section.
If animals are permissible in the births/deaths sections, a change to the wording of the page notice would be in order. And even if not, a change to the page notice saying "notable animal births and deaths belong in the events section", would probably be a good idea. Rwessel ( talk) 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
"619 - Emperor Gaozu allowed the assassination of a khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate by Eastern Turkic rivals, one of the earliest events in the Tang campaigns against the Western Turks."
This is very dubious and should not be posted on the main page of Wikipedia. Tong Yabghu Qaghan (ruled 618-628) wasn't assassinated in 619 and the source didn't point out which qan (or other guests) was assassinated. The source did NOT at all claim any qaghan was assassinated. -- 146.111.30.193 ( talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
November 10th is going to be the first World Keratoconus Day. what are the requirements to have it added to the November 10 article? k18s ( talk) 07:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
With most projects seeming to move away from the archaic – why is this project still using it instead of the simpler "–"? Less coding would seem to be better. I'm asking because I came across a day of the year article and ran it through the usual wikipedia ndash correction filter and got reverted. It just seemed strange since most of the sports projects use a simple "–" to handle things. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
My private endeavour is nearing completion. You can read about it here. So far I've updated links up to the year 1600. As you can see in the chart below the result is a dent regarding the 17th century; in section Births and Deaths, 17th century persons are currently underrepresented in the date pages.
That's why I've decided to extend the project until the year 1699 end then call it a day. I expect to add another 500 notable persons to the Births section alone (and even more edits correcting errors/discrepancies).
Future plans
Project
'All Who Are Born Must Die'
I noticed that the number of exact birth dates stated in
year pages are catching up and overtaking death dates from the late Middle Ages onwards. The entries in the Births sections outnumber those in the Deaths section greatly, sometimes [
by a factor of 5 or more]. I suspect that contributors often omit to add the corresponding date of death after stating a person's date of birth on a year page. (Chart shows outdated numbers):
I will write some software to automatically check for these omitted entries and add them to the Deaths section of the year pages. After that I will insert them into the matching DOY page. In most cases the notability will be not questioned since already an approved entry exists in the Birth section of the corresponding DOY page.
Ongoing activities
Cheers, Mill 1 ( talk) 10:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is this put in at the introduction? It is completely arbitrary in that the 400 year window defines its distribution. It's therefore up there with numerology and should really be deleted. I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently, but it really annoys me as it is generally useless. Donebythesecondlaw ( talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Are people watching here? I have an important request! Very important! Oh, yes. Very. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a proposal I would like this project to consider.
Since 2016 I've been focussing on improving the DOY- and Year-pages, especially on the pre-1700's entries in the Birth- and Deaths sections. To that end I created an application to help spot & fix errors and generate notable entries that were missing. You can read about it on my
user page.
As a side effect I noticed that a lot of un(der)referenced and insufficiently notable entries exist in the DOY-pages from the 1500's onwards; many articles are stubs, are un(der)referenced and/or have very little content. These entries do not qualify and should be removed from the DOY-pages.
I realised that with a little added programming [1] it should be possible to identify these births-/deaths entries automatically. This could help cleaning up WP:DAYS articles immensly. I've been thinking about the way to go about it. I'm aware of the ongoing discussions about notability (and verifiability) so I realise that it will be impossible to come up with an algorithm to perfectly spot entries that are do not qualify for WP:DAYS. However, also in light of current discussions, I think that following rule set would identify entries eligible for removal from WP:DAYS with a high probability:
I welcome suggestions to better spot unqualified DOY entries. The idea is to generate a table containing a list of entries that meet these conditions.
I would like the project members' thoughts on this. Would you be willing to use the proposed table as a tool for DOY-trimming and review regarding existing Births- and Deaths entries?
Mill 1 (
talk)
09:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm struggling a bit defining the
'rule set' that will automatically identify existing entries that don't qualify for
WP:DAYS. So far I've come up with a number of criteria but I would welcome the project's members suggestions.
To make my question clear I've created a sample spreadsheet showing all DOY Births- en Deaths entries of January (year > 1600). Next table shows several properties of the articles linked to from
January 1:
As you can see the table shows properties like page size (in number of characters in the wikitext), number of external links etcetera. From this data it's obvious that a lot of existing entries have no place in
WP:DAYS based on
WP:N and
WP:V and should be removed.
Using filters you can zoom in on entries that should not qualify for being listed in DOY-pages. For example: Use the filter in column F to review entries that contain less than 1500 characters (see picture) or use a combination of filters/sorts. The idea is that by experimenting this way we can come up with a rule set that can spot unqualified entries with a high probability. Maybe other properties or criteria exist I didn't think of.
If agreed upon I could generate a list of entries that should be removed from
WP:DAYS. I could even automate that manual process but only if there is enough consensus about and trust in the defined rule set.
You can download the Excel file
here (yes, it's safe).
Please state Oppose if you don't think that a rule set can be created to define articles that do not qualify for DOY-listing. State your arguments for your opposition.
Looking forward to your suggestions.
Mill 1 (
talk)
15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Because of the *overwhelming* response so far I suspect that project members are a bit hesitative to download and open the shared Excel file. That's why, in a final attempt to get things going, I created a
wikitable. The table is an excerpt of the data in the Excel file. It shows entries that are currently listed in DOY-pages but do not qualify for it. Hopefully the excerpt will make clear to what kind of articles DOY-pages are linking to and how much they are in need of trimming.
You can find the sample entries
here.
The February 2 page lists the birthday for Pat Sullivan as, of course, February 2, but also as the year 1887. When you click on the link for " Pat Sullivan", the resulting Wiki (and almost all of the citations) say February 22, 1885.
I believe the February 2 page is in error, and Pat Sullivan's birthday should be moved to the February 22 page and the year corrected to 1885.
Thanks Rodger Sunderland 108.31.204.64 ( talk) 00:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The guidelines at WP:DAYS#Style state:
"References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles. However, references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles and not external links."
This seems to have been added years ago and is now taken as an obvious tenet. However it seems to fly in the face of WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN. I propose that this be changed to the wording from WP:BURDEN:
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
I think the exemption from references should be struck from this guideline.
collapsed for readability
|
---|
Thx
@Mufka, I did not notice the exemption guideline already had been changed. As this is my first project discussion I am bit puzzled what constitutes project consensus. Regarding this subject a proposal was made, 3 members supported it and within 5 days the guideline was changed (and apparently enforced as of yesterday). Shouldn't there be some kind of deadline before which project members should respond? And after proposal adoption shouldn't there be an announcement when the guideline will be enforced, especially if it has a massive impact like this one? The guideline should be reverted since there is no consensus regarding this proposal.
Mill 1 (
talk)
08:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious, and Toddst1's actions seem to have been perfectly appropriate and in good faith. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Blueboar: I understand what you mean about changing articles. But please keep in mind that nothing in this process prevents removal of controversial content. Challenged content, per WP:MINREF, requires inline citation before it can be replaced. There's no reason to require that all 100,000+ birthdates, death dates, and events have an inline citation. You're giving free license for somebody to disrupt the encyclopedia by blanking these articles. AlexEng( TALK) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged(emphasis mine). If something seems unreliable to you remove it. It then can't be re-added without a source. I don't see why we need a word for word repetition of WP:BURDEN in the WikiProject style guidelines; the existing language is more helpful. AlexEng( TALK) 17:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It's clarifying that not every statement requires a referencebut that's not at all what it says. It says:
References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles.That's a blanket statement which, taken at face value, directly contradicts WP:V's requirement for inline citations for some types of statements. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Is this the proper venue to be having a discussion on this subject? I would hate for the RfC to run its course only for people to dismiss its results because of WP:CONLIMITED. What's the proper course of action? AlexEng( TALK) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Picture this, each DOY usually has about 200-300 lines. Imagine referencing every single line in a DOY, you will have a ref of another 200-300 lines, a mirror for each content. Each DOY will blow its size 2 times the original size.
I think it is extremely redundant and unnecessary. The original rule (before the changes on October 17, 2017) is that there is no need to place ref to every single line in DOY, as long as the ref is provided in the linked main article. It has always been like this for 10+ years. I respect the proposed intention, however, is this really achievable (given the extreme dynamics of the DOY articles)? is the pressure for compliance really worth it? would it help? 366 DOY each with 200-300 lines means 109,800 new refs should be added, which IMO is extremely redundant given each content actually already well-referenced in the linked main article in the first place (with multi-refs!). What will happen if the project stops in the middle just because we couldn't cope with the dynamic changes usually associated with DOY articles?
In my opinion, the task list of Ensure each article has ==References== {{reflist}} added in the project page is very difficult to be implemented and would introduce major changes in the entire 366 DOY article as well as potential inconsistency throughout the 366 DOY articles for a long period of time. This is the first major change for 366 wiki articles after a decade.
To be honest, I proposed to have the rule of Ensure each article has References (reflist) added removed. I think it doesn't make sense and would cause quite a mess in the run. Now I just read it (I missed it!), I actually strongly oppose the proposal of Exemption from WP:V discussed above. It would create a big burden to whoever responsible for completing this not enforceable project. As you may all know, each of the DOY articles is one of the most dynamic articles in Wikipedia, it is keep changed by random users on every single day.
What are your opinions? Is this "project" of referencing really worth it? Let's open discussion for the sake of improvement?-- Rochelimit ( talk) 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I supported the idea to reference each line. I try to help out with things that I support, because it is a bit hypocritical if I do not. So for a week or so, I would click on five or so entries, looking for the citation for the date entry. Maybe one out of five times I would actually find a citation, and then add it to the DOY article. Did not take long for me to give up on that project; I thought that most of the entries were cited in the article as it gets claimed here time and time again, but through my moderate sample size that was not the case. I ended up abandoning the effort when I found that out. Kees08 (Talk) 20:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As we would say in the
Netherlands: this discussion has a very long beard by now. First and foremost: I understand perfectly why
Toddst1 started his initiative almost a year ago. I am also passionate about the quality of this encyclopedia,
WP:DOY in particular, and am also frustrated about the number of DOY-entries that are wrong or that link to crappy bio's. Hell, I even launched a
failed initiative to get rid of entries that link to
unreferenced and unnotable articles.
Although I'm a bit reluctant to enter yet another new discussion on this topic I'll state my top 5 reasons why I believe that the guideline requiring inline citation for every DOY-entry was misguided.
As has been pointed out; that has not been done since September 2017 and it never will.
That's my two-cents. I will follow this discussion closely and with interest. Mill 1 ( talk) 20:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
My plan is probably to bring this discussion to another level, perhaps another village pump?
:It's important that every statement in Wikipedia have a source -- preferably the best that exists, but even a crappy one means editors & readers can know where the statement came from, & nudge them to replacing that crappy source with a better one. And I believe that even lists should have sources. (I've been spending the last two years providing sources for List of Roman consuls, so I am not only putting my money where my mouth is I also know what kind of chore that is. And how good it feels to make something in Wikipedia solidly reliable.) That said, it's a reasonable assumption that having the information to have a subject included in a list like DOY -- or its partner, the Year pages -- should be provided in the linked article. So why not propose a new rule: All articles linked to a DOY page must provide a source that verifies the event/birth/death did happen on that day -- or the item & relevant article is unlinked. Put the burden of proof on whoever wants to add the article. (Note: I'm assuming here one doesn't add an event/birth/death to a DOY article without the relevant article existing.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Wp:v should be followed, it would work fine if a requirement to "challenge" includes expressing a concern about the verifiability of the uncited item. Then only the entries that were sincerely questioned would need to be cited. North8000 ( talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know this had happened. a) I think there is a significant difference between 'events' and the other subcategories. 'Events' are statements that do not necessarily exist as such elsewhere in Wiki. I can see the necessity for verification if it is not simply a link to an existing article. b) if it is simply a link to an existing article (eg The Fall of Constantinople see below. c) The other categories are simple links to articles in W. They are more like lists or indices. An index in a book does not reference its entries - the references are at the places where the indexed words appear in the book. Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 12:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Heads up to those who care, at some point in the next week I will be at VPP asking for community review of the above initiative giving too much weight to a mere WIkiProject essay. When, IDK as my schedule is quite up in the air for the time being. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
September 30 has James Dean mentioned twice, once under Events and another under Deaths. Is this reasonable? Or should every birth and death be listed under Events also? Shenme ( talk) 21:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:March 15#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages.
--
--
--
22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:May 21#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages.
--
--
--
20:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be good if the list of people born / died on each day was something like:
Year | Name | category | description | death |
---|---|---|---|---|
377 | Arcadius | Historic leader | Byzantine emperor | 408 |
1431 | Pope Alexander VI | Historic leader | Pope | 1503 |
1994 | Craig Murray | Sport | Scottish footballer | |
1995 | Poppy | Entertainment | American singer |
This would make it easy to sort by category or year of death (and people who are still alive), as well as year of birth.
Obviously what categories people go in would take some thinking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjmunro ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Per
#Exemption_from_WP:V above, and because I have been made aware of the situation on
my talk page, I would suggest creating a template, based loosely on {{
More citations needed}}
, to explain the new situation. This template should be placed above all Days-of-the-year articles, or at least above sections about living persons, until references have been added to all the statements.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have been on Wikipedia since 2006, but I'm not much of a joiner. I enjoy looking at today's DOY and then cruising around to interesting articles. I have little or no interest in the births and deaths, but I visit many of the "events" articles. I have always been truly annoyed by "event" listings that I think are too long. Recently, I unilaterally decided to start taking action, and I have been trimming overlong event entries, and in the few cases that the event was not supported by the linked article, I delete it. I then realized that maybe I should find out if my actions are supported by guidelines, and I stumbled upon this project.
I basically look at all entries that are long enough to wrap to a second line on a reasonably-sized desktop page, and then trim out what I consider to be excessive detail. I try fairly hard to leave enough information to let a casual reader know whether or not the event is of interest to the reader, so a few entries are still a bit long after trimming.
So, here's the question: Am I being too aggressive in my trimming? - Arch dude ( talk) 02:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I was planning to add something to the '2018' subpage for January 14 (ie Portal:Current events/2018 January 14). There wasn't a heading it would have fitted under, so I was wondering if there is a list we should be referring to so we make sure we are being consistent? If not, should there be? Moira Paul ( talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Categories for the news items
- Armed conflicts and attacks
- Arts and culture
- Business and economy
- Disasters and accidents
- Health and environment
- International relations
- Law and crime
- Politics and elections
- Science and technology
- Sports
There has recently been a spate of anon IPs adding unreferenced entries to the DOTY articles, and I have protected some of the most popular pages, i.e. the ones around the current date, for a period so that anons can't edit. I have just blocked User:Unknown artist for repeatedly doing the same, despite several warnings on his talk page and a block log as long as my arm. Deb ( talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi on June 15th I want to add the foundation of the UEFA because that day UEFA come to life so the problem is that I want to add it but if I do so I might get into trouble because if a want to reference it, I cannot do it because I'm a mess on this thing of Wikipedia codes and I have been warned several times because of my problem of referencing things I add into the Wikipedia... So my proposal is that I will add it myself and someone who is more skilled than me add the reference. Waiting some kind people who can understand me without threating me like a dumb... Thanks in advance!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeutscherFeuer ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Referring to #Exemption_from_WP:V above, how about creating an event to get this problem fixed? Let's ask project members and interested people to add references to the article about their birthday. Ideally, someone born (or who has started editing on) January 1 would add all the required references to the " January 1" list. In most cases, these are already given in the linked article, can quickly be verified for reliability and then copied to the list. In a few cases, there will be unverified statements, and these should be removed from the linked article and the list. Whenever this happens, we also prove that it was a good idea to require references for the list entries. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
For the record, @ Deb:'s work on this project has been nothing short of awesome. I've awarded her a Spotlight User_talk:Deb#The_Defender_of_the_Wiki_Barnstar. Please keep up the awesome work!! Toddst1 ( talk) 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I was just reverted for an update to May 17 adding year of death for Herman Wouk, who passed today (17 May 2019) at age 103. This is in the subject's article with proper reference to his death date. I have been informed we need the reference in the date page. I do not understand this requirement and as I do not usually edit Dates pages I was not aware. This is daft. Every entry in a date page must have a link to an article in the English Wikipedia (they all do). The corresponding article takes care of asserting notability and it must have a reference for dates of birth and death to be accepted. Is this for real? Almost none of the current entries for May 17 have a reference in that page and I can guarantee this goes for every day and every year page without looking much for it. Shouldn't we then delete all entries that are not referenced? This is a navigation page, informative, and pointing to the corresponding articles, which must be properly referenced. Who came up with this? Am I upset about this? You bet. Can someone please explain the reasoning? And let me know who will start removing all "unreferenced" entries so we start from scratch. -- Alexf (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
name-calling by blocked IP-hopping sockpuppet collapsed
|
---|
|
How is the above guideline intended to be implemented? Now that these articles are no longer exempt from WP:V, are we to go around deleting practically every article maintained by this WikiProject as almost none of them have any references? -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 18:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Any material added after 16 October 2017 lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.-- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Can I add these: {{BTS(band)|BTS}} {{Seventeen (South Korean band)|Seventeen}} Thanks
I want to edit 2013 and 2015 by adding their debut dates. Can I? FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia ( talk) 11:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I learned about the requirement for inline citation on new entries to day-of-year articles just by chance. It appears as though many (most? all?) day-of-year articles are semi-protected. Is it possible to send a mass notification to all editors with pending changes reviewer permissions letting them know about the requirement? Schazjmd (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Many entries in 'Days of the Year' refer to an event but often there is no link to the event described. An example is Jan 2 where the entry under 1942 refers to the capture of Manila but the links are to the city of Manila and the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The links to the 'Philippines_campaign_(1941–1942)' or 'Japanese_occupation_of_the_Philippines' are missing or omitted.
Can we review the entries throughout the section that do not link directly to the sense of the entry? If the event is incidental to any specific page, perhaps it does not merit an entry in 'Days of the Year'. If anything, the occupation of Manila is most historically related to the fall of the Philippines than to the city in isolation. Malchemist ( talk) 04:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I have seen this pop up here and there -- someone will add the subject's race (usually African-American) to the descriptive note on a birthday line. One example is Star Jones on March 24. This seems unnecessary, unclear, and inconsistent.
I have similar qualms about religion, "Jewish" being a commonly seen descriptor that is not needed here. The vast majority of birthday lines include only nationality and occupation (or other brief notability memo). Calling out the fact that someone is not white or Christian seems a bit old-fashioned to me.
What would it take to firm up the rules here and make birthday lines more consistent? Krychek ( talk) 20:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the race or religion should be mentioned if it is one of the main reasons the person is being mentioned but not in general. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. could/should be described as "a leader of the african-american civil-rights movement" , but not as "an african-american leader of the african-american civil-rights movement." Donald Trump would not be described as the 45th caucasian president of the United States. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The term is being disputed at June 1 and I think we should seek a consensus, or at least a compromise. "Race car driver" is an American term and "racing driver" a British one. Looking June 1, we have Ted Field and Bob Christie (both American) as race car, while Martin Brundle, Olivier Tielemans and Jo Gartner (all European) are racing. According to User:Eposty, race car should be universal. On the other hand, User:Deb points out that US terminology is for Americans but also cites the example of Auto_racing#Racing_driver, bearing in mind that "auto racing" is an American term for what the British call "motor racing".
A good compromise might be along the lines of MOS:BCE in that you don't change what is already there unless you gain consensus at the article talk page. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
In the guideline at Wikipedia:Days of the year is the statement: "Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles". This is tagged Template:Specify. I think we do need to expand the statement by saying what is meant by more stringent requirements.
All the birth lists include an excessive number of people who have been fleetingly famous or locally well known during the last twenty to thirty years. I generally find that people born before, say, the Second World War, do have some longer term claim to fame and are noteworthy. The cause of this problem is recentism and it is most apparent in the fields of film, music, TV and sport.
I don't think these lists should include someone who used to be in Coronation Street or someone who played for " The Shakers" in the old Fourth Division, yet you do see these people there, sharing a birthday with an Oscar-winning director or a World Cup winner. They are all notable because of the wider scope of the GNG and so they deserve articles but I really do think we need to narrow the scope of the wiki-calendars to include the Oscar and World Cup winners but exclude the bit part actors and the journeyman footy players.
I would suggest that we insist upon some major achievement for people in these fields who were born since 1960, or maybe 1940, or perhaps in the last century as a whole. For example, starring in a film that was a box office hit or winning a major cinema or TV award like an Oscar or Emmy. In music, winning a Grammy or topping one of the Billboard or UK charts. In sport, winning one of the major titles in sports like boxing, golf or tennis; winning an Olympic gold medal; breaking a world record; playing for a team that wins a world or continental championship; or for a team that wins a major national championship such as the Superbowl or the World Series or one of the English, German, Italian or Spanish football leagues.
I think that if we took this approach we would make it much easier to maintain these articles and, more importantly, we would be making them so much more useful and meaningful for the readers. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Lucas Till was born on the 10th of August 1990. He is not on the list of August 10 birth LISH 0810 ( talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor has been mass adding links to this site to "External links". So, yea or nay? -- Calton | Talk 13:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious as to the purpose and naming of List of historical anniversaries. This article seems to be merely an index of links to specific days of the year. While each of those individual articles note historical events that took place on that day, List of historical anniversaries does not. It is a list of links to days. Seems to be a calendar, essentially. Further "historical anniversaries" is poorly phrased, if not redundant. An anniversary necessarily notes something in the past (historical). If anything, this should at least be rephrased as "notable anniversaries", and perhaps the bolder move would be to rename the entire article Index of days of the year. Thoughts? -- ZimZalaBim talk 16:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I’ve noticed — for some of the days in October — that some of the entries refer us to the relevant page from OnThisDay.com.
Which is fair enough.
But can we ALSO start adding the equivalent page from Britannica.com?
I also note we’ve long had entries from the BBC, the New York Times and the Canada Channel.
Is it possible to add the equivalents — if there are any — from Australia and New Zealand?
And possibly India?
I know it would add extra work, but having entries from major English language counties seems only right.
Cuddy2977 ( talk) 16:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I've crunched some numbers, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Analysis of citation issues for date and year articles: while I recommend reading the full analysis to understand where this number comes from, I estimate there are about 120,000 to 130,000 uncited statements in the 366 day articles. Much to think about here – I have a detailed breakdown of what all the numbers are and what I think they mean. Probably worth checking out! jp× g 20:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking through the articles listed in the "brought up to standard" section, I notice that they are not quite consistent in whether they contain inline references for items in the "Holidays and observances" sections, (compare e.g. January 1#Holidays and observances with May 11#Holidays and observances). I don't see anything in the Style section of the project page suggesting that these sections don't require references, but since we appear not to all be on the same page on this issue I thought it worth asking.
My personal view is that these sections do require references. In the few articles I've worked through they have each contained very minor saints and holidays of dubious notability, which I've had to remove as unverifiable.
Best, Wham2001 ( talk) 12:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
-- Suonii180 ( talk) 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
regarding having links to wiki articles that mention them, does that mean they do not have to have a wiki article? E.g. simply being in a list of lesser holidays without any description or further linking is fine? (as well as independent ref. of course). 142.163.195.66 ( talk) 17:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
This day doesn't have a deaths section. I don't know how we should approach this. Creating an empty deaths section isn't really an option so we might need to fill it up before adding it. This would be quite time consuming though. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is formatting of the page "April 19" so different than all others? Any special reason? Ivogusa ( talk) 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Understood. I work with Wikipedia every day. Shold I start changing records into agreed categories or is there going to be an automatic conversion? I could help... Ivogusa ( talk) 06:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
ok, I can work on it but the rules are unclear: I thought we agreed on a uniform form how the page should look like. But April 20 shows: pre-19th century, 1801-1940, 1941-present.
April 19 shows: pre-18th century, 1701-1900, 1901-1978, 1976-present
April 21 shows: pre-19th century, 19th century, 20th century, 21st century
So what are the rules? Can any day have different blocks based on the numbers of entries? Please advice Ivogusa ( talk) 06:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I work on divisions of pages in my free time, but I need to get a green light to continue. I don´t want to do something wrong which will have to be redone later. Please advise Ivogusa ( talk) 07:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the use of a term like "pre-19th century" or "pre-20th century" as a section header is confusing some editors and it would perhaps be better to use "pre-1801" or "pre-1901" instead. This is arguably more readable and it is certainly more specific given that there are people who think the 20th century began in 1900 and ended in 1999.
For spans like 1901–1950 which have specific beginning and end years, they must always be separated by an endash not a hyphen per MOS:YEARRANGE. Again, there are people who don't use or understand the endash.
Also, the {{0}} alignment function should be used whenever there are three-digit years in the same section as four-digit ones. I have yet again just had to revert someone who took these out in order to mis-align the years.
If project members are in agreement with these points, could we please incorporate them into the instructions somewhere? Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Then I suggest we begin by raising a proposal to review and revise both the style guide and the template so that they become credible and useful user guides which meet the needs of the encyclopaedia's readers and also remove editorial confusion. At present, those pages fall well short of expectations and are not fit for purpose, as per the issues raised below. I will bring forward a proposal for discussion, but please allow me some time to work on it. It will be on this page but under a new heading. If anyone has any additional issues or wishes to make any positive suggestions towards improving project standards, please open a new topic below and outline them there. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
According to the project's style guide, "standard date page layout includes the sections: Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, and External links". That is fair enough as those section headings have been in use across all 366 articles for a very long time. The guide does not say anything about sub-section headings and so it must be assumed that these are optional.
The guide does say that "any change to the page layout (my italics) that would be a deviation from the template should be discussed here". But a change to template layout is not the same thing a change to detail. The very purpose of a template is to provide a layout and format guide, not to define detail unless a heading like Events is specified as it is in the guide. The template shows that sub-headings are acceptable and, as a template, it defines accepted formats.
Looking at the examples in the template, they are nonsense. There is a 1600 event in 1601–1900 and a 1600 birth under Pre-1600! How does that help a new editor? The whole thing needs to be reviewed and revised so that it presents a coherent and clear guide for readers and editors. No Great Shaker ( talk) 08:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
As promised, here are my proposals for improvement of this project. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
A fundamental issue with a project of such limited scope – only 366 articles – is that it effectively uses three pages when one would be quite sufficient. According to the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, the page is "meant to be a style guide for date pages". On the same page, there is a section headed "Style" to which the shortcut WP:DOYSTYLE links. But, there are other sections on the page which are not concerned with style. This page needs to begin by addressing the aims of the project, which is the method invariably adopted by other projects.
The shortcut to this project page is WP:DAYS while the equally logical shortcut WP:DOY links to Wikipedia:Days of the year, a separate page which also aims to provide guidelines. This has three section shortcuts: WP:BIRTHDOY and WP:DEATHDOY both link to the "Births and deaths" section, which attempts to address the project's main problem area of excessive listings that are mostly caused by recentism. The other shortcut WP:DOYCITE links to a single short paragraph section that rightly stipulates the need for inline citations.
The third project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template which presents additional problems, some of which have been raised in earlier topics. Given that all 366 articles are long-established with the necessary basic structure in place, a template is superfluous because if any style or usage guidelines need illustration, it is better to refer the reader to an example in a live article (e.g., ask the reader to see 1066 in September_25#Deaths for how to deal with three deaths in the same event). The template issues are the sort of thing that should be addressed at DOY/DAYS – e.g., sub-heading formats; date range compliance with MOS:YEARRANGE; instructions about citation details; etc.
This use of what are effectively three project pages can only (and does) lead to confusion, so the three pages should be combined. This should be achieved by merging DOY into DAYS as an additional section. Integration of DOY into DOYSTYLE isn't practical. This would mean both DAYS and DOY would be shortcuts to the actual project page while DOYSTYLE, DOYCITE, BIRTHDOY and DEATHDOY would continue to serve as section shortcuts. The template should be discarded after any useful points are built into the appropriate sections of DOY/DAYS.
This is currently an unstructured list which needs to be revised for improved understanding. Some of the points in DOYSTYLE should be under DOYCITE or BIRTHDOY (or both). There needs to be better co-ordination across the key sections of the project page and that is another strong reason for there being only one project page.
DOYCITE correctly insists that an inline citation must accompany each new line entry but it needs to be taken further in that the sources named must be reliable and that citations must be presented using an approved format such as cite web, cite book or cite news; or by sfn if the full source is in a bibliography section.
WP:BAREURLS deprecates the use of bare urls and, as this project insists on a citation for each entry, it should also reject any citing a bareurl as these do not provide source information and so the entry is effectively unsourced. The main reasons for proposing deletion of bareurl entries are that there are certain editors who routinely apply them to DOY articles and secondly because the websites have a tendency to be non- WP:RS – e.g., IMDB, blogs, self-published, etc.
Source information varies according to what is available but, where possible, the parameters must include url (if a website), title, author's name (if known), publisher, date or year of publication, isbn (books), bibcode or similar (journals).
This has the appearance of a work in progress. There are a couple of points about noteworthiness in the lead of the current DOY which are not fully reflected in the section. Some thought is needed to determine exactly what is meant by "more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles". In this context, the examples for sport, media and drama do not go far enough. If a footballer has "taken part in multiple international events" that means they are more notable than someone who has played in numerous matches for Crewe Alexandra or whoever, but what if the international has never played in the World Cup or the Euros? Is he then noteworthy enough for inclusion given that there are huge numbers of international sports competitors and the project must be seeking to reduce the volume of 20th century births.
The DOY/DAYS project page should say something about the structure of an article page by mentioning use and purpose of the {{calendar}}, {{This date in recent years}} and {{Day}} templates which are activated by {{PAGENAME}} (i.e., the article's title date). New editors need to know that the use of these three templates is to be taken as read and that they must not be suppressed.
Re the Day template, it should be mentioned that the paragraph it activates in all articles usually forms the entire lead section. Editors should have the option to expand the lead if the date is especially significant for any reason like June 6, July 4 or December 25. If the lead is to be expanded, a new paragraph must be opened for the additional content. It would be as well to include an example of the lead as created by the Day template:
March 31 is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar; 275 days remain until the end of the year.
Some of these points exist as comments on article edit pages and need to be emphasised on the project page:
1. The Events, Births and Deaths sections are mandatory with level 2 headings that exist in all 366 project articles. Do not alter or remove them.
2. Do not add names of people without Wikipedia articles to these lists. Red links are not accepted by this project.
3. Do not trust "this year in history" websites for accurate date information. However, four of these are in the external links on each article page.
4. Do not link multiple occurrences of the same year, just link the first occurrence (per the 1066 example above).
On the current issue of sub-sections within the Events, Births and Deaths listings, the solution can NEVER be "one size fits all". Each article has different requirements according to its content. Some have fairly short Events sections which really do not need to be split. As a rule of thumb, a list of up to 25 entries will not greatly exceed the screen size of a normal laptop. If a list is very long, however, readability becomes an issue and such a list should be sub-divided into sections of moreorless equal length.
If the sub-section heading is a year range, it must comply with MOS:YEARRANGE – for example, "1801–1825" is a correctly formatted range. Incorrect formats include "1801 – 1825" (no spaces), "1801-1825" (no hyphens) and "1801 to 1825" (no words).
It is not always practical to use a year range because of doubts about when the first sub-section begins and how the last one ends. If there are a number of BCE events in a list, it may be wise to place them in a single sub-section headed "Before the Common Era (BCE)" and follow it with a sub-section headed "1 AD–1200" (1200 is just an example, not to be applied literally), so that there is a clear split between BC/BCE and AD/CE. It should be remembered that the titles of all articles about BCE years carry the suffix BC and articles about CE years to 150 (plus some later ones) carry the prefix AD.
Years with three-digit, two-digit or one-digit numbers must be aligned with the four-digit numbers in the same sub-section. This is achieved by using Template:0 before the year number once, twice or three times respectively. For example:
The end period in a list will always be to the present day and consideration must be given to the range of the end period. If it should be the 21st century from 1 January 2001, then the sub-section could be headed simply "21st century". An acceptable alternative would be "2001–present" and this format would apply if the end period is, for example, "1991–present" or "2011–present". While a heading like "2011–" is not incorrect, it is preferable to include "present" to avoid any ambiguity. Do not, however, use an end of range year in the final sub-section – for example, a range ending 2020 excludes 2021.
If feasible, it is probably best that a year range should consist of whole centuries like "1201–1500". If, however, one part of a century has a long list of items, then split the century into two or more sub-sections as in "1801–1850", "1851–1860" and "1861–1900". Because of recentism, the 20th and 21st centuries present considerable difficulties with birth and death lists that have become overgrown with non-noteworthy subjects. In many articles, the 20th century will need to be split unevenly and so successive ranges might be "1946–1960", "1961–1965" and "1966–1990". The whole point about splitting lists into sub-sections is to present our readers with something that is sensible and above all READABLE. Splitting a list of 150 births into sub-sections of three, seventeen and 130 items is neither sensible nor (the third one) readable. Sub-sections and their headings must be tailored to the individual needs of each of the 366 articles.
The project page needs to summarise these sections and templates along the following lines:
That's it, although I'm sure there is much that other people could add. I will keep a watch on this topic but I don't intend to take part in any discussion unless someone should ask me a direct question, especially if any clarification should be needed. I hope this is useful. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Both the test of time and births and deaths guidelines stipulate that being newsworthy is not necessarily noteworthy, and the same must apply to anyone who meets GNG or an SNG. As part of the drive to bring articles up to standard, I think we need to be ruthless with birthdays of sportspeople who haven't done something exceptional.
My sport is football and I'd say, as a rule of thumb, that a footballer must be a long-term international for one of the countries which regularly appears in the World Cup (not just the winners but also Netherlands, Croatia, Mexico, Japan, etc.) and/or have played long-term for one of the major European or South American clubs like Liverpool, Barcelona, Boca Juniors, etc. For example, I've just found a source for Santi Cazorla who obviously qualifies on both counts. On the other hand, I've removed the entries for Ryan France and Olly Lancashire!
You can easily apply similar benchmarks to other top sports such as boxing, baseball, cricket, chess, athletics, golf, NFL, tennis, etc. The individual sports like golf and athletics have their major tournaments, Olympic and world champions. I think, though, that we should remove participants in minor sports such as rugby league, squash, badminton, polo, tiddleywinks and what have you unless, like Birgit Fischer, they have done something really exceptional. Taking rugby league as an example, there's no doubt that someone has been purposely adding its players to these articles and so you see people like Keegan Hipgrave in the lists – there are no less than TEN rugby league players at 1 January alone.
Happy to discuss. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 07:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template#Subsections about a possible change to the structure of these articles and the template. Please participate. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought I'd bring folks' attention to a thread on Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year discussing a major improvement to this project. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I posted this at the (General) Wikipedia Help Desk. I was directed to come here, to this page. My original post is here ---> Wikipedia:Help desk#Article for April 7 date. It states:
So, I was told (at that Help Desk) that this involves the Template {{ Day}} ... and I was referred to this Talk Page. How can we fix / address this error? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've really enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews over the years and now I'm taking a stab at conducting them. If anyone's interested in being interviewed, feel free to contribute here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject days of the year interview draft. It's a great way to educate others about your WikiProject and perhaps get help or new contributors if you need it. I'll see how we go but aim to wrap this up around July 20th.
I invite anyone interested to contribute and look forward to hearing from you, Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | WikiProject Days of the year was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 29 8 29. |
Hi everyone, the interview was published! A template link to the interview (can be archived or placed on this page) is above. Many thanks to @
Willbb234,
Toddst1, and
Suonii180: for contributing their time. For those who contributed, if you'd like you can post a little icon at the top of your talk page to the interview using this code: {{Signpost user topicon|article_name = WikiProject Report|date = September 2021|wikilink = Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-08-29/WikiProject report|action = was interviewed in}}
. Cheers,
Tom (LT) (
talk)
02:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a note to notify WikiProject members that I've slightly altered Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template to follow MOS:DATERANGE; this was probably a mistake in formatting that has been perpetuated over hundreds of pages. All the best, Sdrqaz ( talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)