This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I think the only currently enforced qualification for listing in the birth/death lists is that an article exist. We have on the order of 100,000 articles on living people (and a fair number of articles on people who have already died) which I think means we're headed for 300 or more entries per day for the birth lists (and ultimately as many on the death lists). I suggest we:
One issue with this approach is that categories are sorted alphabetically, while the current lists are sorted by year. We could add the year as a leading component in a sort key, which accomplishes the sort aspect but without displaying the year. To get the years displayed in a births-by-day category would require categorizing a year article in these categories. It might be odd to have 366 categories for each actual year article, so we could potentially create a redirect for each year (something like "2007_") and categorize the redirects. Or just let the categories be alphabetically sorted and lose the by-year sorting.
Manually maintaining these lists grows tiresome. If they're really going to become inclusive of all articles, I think categories are the way to go. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just cleaning up some biography entries for Franklin County, Missouri and came across severak with birth/death dates that weren't listed on the days of the year. As I started adding them I ran into more and more biographies with the same problem. Categories seem to me to be the best way to go, since they are updated automatically. The only alternative I can see is to run an automated bot that culls birth and death dates from biography entries and generates a list that, once reviewed, can be merged by another program bot into existed days of the year lists. Still, this procedure would be prone to error. Can we somehow get the process started for birth/death date categories? ( SirBruce ( talk) 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
There are many patent dates listed in the date articles. I don't think that the patent of Portland Cement, Corn Flakes or Chewing Gum are globally notable. None of those changed any lives on a large scale. Things like the electric light bulb or the telegraph might qualify but I don't even think that the date of the patent is particularly notable compared to the date of invention. I understand that dates of invention might be a little illusive compared to patent dates. I suggest the removal of the obviously non-notable patent dates and invite further discussion on removal of all patent dates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
1- as long as there is no certain date of invention, date of patent is all we have got about inventions for sure. 2- why patent of for example chewing gum is not globally notable? because it did not change any lives on a large scale? true but appearance of things such as chewing gums always indicates and indexes a change in the way people live. they are about a change in people habbits. is not Portland Cement important enough to be listed by its patent day?
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that none of the days in any months say when it is in 2008.... -- Talk to Stealth500 ( talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather than having each year on a separate row like this (from the March_30 page):
which has the issue of years being repeated, some with links some without (why are some years un-linked anyway?), would it not make more sense to group dates by year, eg:
Robbie ( Runsninth ( talk)) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC))
1970s | |
1970 | Secretariat, American racehorse (d. 1989) |
1971 | Mark Consuelos, American actor |
1972 | Mili Avital, Israeli-American actress |
1973 | Jan Koller, Czech footballer |
1975 | Bahar Soomekh, American actress |
1976 |
Mark McClelland, Northern Irish musician (
Degrassi)
Ty Conklin, American ice hockey player |
1978 | Chris Paterson, Scottish rugby player |
1979 |
Norah Jones, American singer and pianist Simon Webbe, English singer |
I'm currently applying here for a permit to run a bot to check new additions to Births and Deaths, and revert those that don't have a link to a page, or have a "redlink" to a page that doesn't exist yet (possibly only in the case of users with only a few good edits). Feel free to comment there if you have any suggestions about this. It's also possible to detect entries linked to pages that don't mention the year in question, or to tagged disambiguation pages, though I'd like some guidance on what people think should be done in those cases. I'd also like some help developing a friendly and informative message that will explain what's going on, since I think a lot of the people adding their own birthdays to the list really don't get why this is not a sensible idea. I can post my drafts here if that'll help. Pseudomonas( talk) 09:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose a minor classification system in the ordering of dates in the "Events", "Births", and "Deaths" section of the date articles.
Here's what it looks like now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=January_1&oldid=187783938
And here's what I propose to make it look like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=January_1&oldid=187783838
Of course, I'd personally go through and do it all myself, but it's somewhat cumbersome to go through a thousand lines of text. In addition, my section divisions aren't that space-consuming, and they help a lot.
Lumberjake ( talk) 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice that most of the events on Days of the Year pages are very poorly sourced -- only generic links to a couple news sites' "on this day" sites, and almost no footnotes. I would like to propose a new task for the group of bringing the Days of the Year into compliance with the Wikipedia:Citing sources style guideline. Comments? -- M @ r ē ino 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally, the new style dates are used for entries in Wikicalendar articles but I think it would be good to add that fact to the style guide. In rare instances, entries are listed on both the new and old style dates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. new style must be the rule and old style must be kept for exceptions. in wikicalendar, birth date of someone like
Anton Chekhov better be mentioned in newstyle unless there is an annual global event for him on the oldstyle date. but it is irreasonable to mention an event like Russia october revolution on its newstyle date because it would not be on october anymore !
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
recently I had troubles about what should be listed for births and deaths and i also made troubles for others. I listed names of famous films of filmmakers and I listed famous inventions of scientists and inventors. almost all I did in this regard was reverted. I did not expect revertion because I saw the same pattern for Guitarists for example. atlast I reached to this sentence presented to me by
user:Arthur Rubin :"It's the current convention that Presidents, royalty, nobel laureates, and musicians are further identified."
is it right ? is it the current convention ? anybody else beside athletes and their medals ? ok. I saw discussions on this issue on
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 4 leaded by Fabricationary and I just made this number 2 post to see if these current conventions are temporarily agreed upon. if anybody remember anything else beside what I have mentioned then please write.
I suggest a guideline added to wikicalendar guidlines in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year according to what should be listed for births and death. that would reduce confusions for newcomers like me.
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
you may find the context - sure not the full context - at the bottom of this page:
User talk:Arthur Rubin
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please consider BlackHistoryDaily.com for the External Links section of the Days of the year.
Not only is this site a comprehensive resource for the African American community; there is a also static page for every day of the year which makes it relevant and applicable to all of the articles in Days of the year.
I have been looking for information on how to create a template similar to the New York Times daily update. The naming protocol on our site is http://www.blackhistorydaily.com/on_this_day/February_19/ (The monthname underscore day of month)
This addition to the day of the year will add diversity to the days of the year, the black community makes up over 12% of the U.S. population. I look forward to a reply. Bradhemmings ( talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Black History deserves recognition and that is why there is a Black History Month in the United States. While Black History may not be distinct or separate from all other history it often gets lost or distorted. What others may deem not "worth remembering" may be of signifcant value to the black community. Canada is given its own section in the external links? Isn't Canadian history also history? Canadians would like to be able to refer specifically and directly to their own history and so would blacks. There is no-one better to tell your story than yourself. If Wikipedia is truly reflective of the World we live in, we should give everyone the opportunity to tell to access content that is important and relevant to them. Bradhemmings ( talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important to settle what the roles of the WP:DAYS and the WP:NGS pages will be so that they can be crafted accordingly. I propose the following:
-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the template for the calendar that is on all of the Wikicalendar articles. The old one is {{JanuaryCalendar}} and the new one is temporarily at User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar. Here they are side by side for comparison (old on the right) Edited: {{JanuaryCalendar}} {{User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar}} Removed because they are both the same now End Edit. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Slight coloring and size difference can be fixed if needed. The reason for doing this is that the old one is dependent on Template:JanuaryCalendar2008 and Template:JanuaryCalendar2008Source and these need to be created each year. The version that I've written use only the Template:Calendar/MonthStartTue set of templates (one for each day of the week). The new version calculates what day the first of the month is and then uses that to create the calendar. It should be maintenance free. I'd like to get some input on it before I replace the templates. Another great feature of the way I did it is that it will only take 12 edits to the {{JanuaryCalendar}} templates to make the change. I'm also thinking that with just a little more work, I could turn the 12 templates into one. I also noticed that the MonthStartTue templates use Monday as the first day of the week. That can be fixed very simply with a new version of those templates if the existing ones cannot be changed (I already have new versions written). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Done: All of the calendar templates have been updated. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I think the only currently enforced qualification for listing in the birth/death lists is that an article exist. We have on the order of 100,000 articles on living people (and a fair number of articles on people who have already died) which I think means we're headed for 300 or more entries per day for the birth lists (and ultimately as many on the death lists). I suggest we:
One issue with this approach is that categories are sorted alphabetically, while the current lists are sorted by year. We could add the year as a leading component in a sort key, which accomplishes the sort aspect but without displaying the year. To get the years displayed in a births-by-day category would require categorizing a year article in these categories. It might be odd to have 366 categories for each actual year article, so we could potentially create a redirect for each year (something like "2007_") and categorize the redirects. Or just let the categories be alphabetically sorted and lose the by-year sorting.
Manually maintaining these lists grows tiresome. If they're really going to become inclusive of all articles, I think categories are the way to go. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just cleaning up some biography entries for Franklin County, Missouri and came across severak with birth/death dates that weren't listed on the days of the year. As I started adding them I ran into more and more biographies with the same problem. Categories seem to me to be the best way to go, since they are updated automatically. The only alternative I can see is to run an automated bot that culls birth and death dates from biography entries and generates a list that, once reviewed, can be merged by another program bot into existed days of the year lists. Still, this procedure would be prone to error. Can we somehow get the process started for birth/death date categories? ( SirBruce ( talk) 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
There are many patent dates listed in the date articles. I don't think that the patent of Portland Cement, Corn Flakes or Chewing Gum are globally notable. None of those changed any lives on a large scale. Things like the electric light bulb or the telegraph might qualify but I don't even think that the date of the patent is particularly notable compared to the date of invention. I understand that dates of invention might be a little illusive compared to patent dates. I suggest the removal of the obviously non-notable patent dates and invite further discussion on removal of all patent dates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
1- as long as there is no certain date of invention, date of patent is all we have got about inventions for sure. 2- why patent of for example chewing gum is not globally notable? because it did not change any lives on a large scale? true but appearance of things such as chewing gums always indicates and indexes a change in the way people live. they are about a change in people habbits. is not Portland Cement important enough to be listed by its patent day?
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that none of the days in any months say when it is in 2008.... -- Talk to Stealth500 ( talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather than having each year on a separate row like this (from the March_30 page):
which has the issue of years being repeated, some with links some without (why are some years un-linked anyway?), would it not make more sense to group dates by year, eg:
Robbie ( Runsninth ( talk)) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC))
1970s | |
1970 | Secretariat, American racehorse (d. 1989) |
1971 | Mark Consuelos, American actor |
1972 | Mili Avital, Israeli-American actress |
1973 | Jan Koller, Czech footballer |
1975 | Bahar Soomekh, American actress |
1976 |
Mark McClelland, Northern Irish musician (
Degrassi)
Ty Conklin, American ice hockey player |
1978 | Chris Paterson, Scottish rugby player |
1979 |
Norah Jones, American singer and pianist Simon Webbe, English singer |
I'm currently applying here for a permit to run a bot to check new additions to Births and Deaths, and revert those that don't have a link to a page, or have a "redlink" to a page that doesn't exist yet (possibly only in the case of users with only a few good edits). Feel free to comment there if you have any suggestions about this. It's also possible to detect entries linked to pages that don't mention the year in question, or to tagged disambiguation pages, though I'd like some guidance on what people think should be done in those cases. I'd also like some help developing a friendly and informative message that will explain what's going on, since I think a lot of the people adding their own birthdays to the list really don't get why this is not a sensible idea. I can post my drafts here if that'll help. Pseudomonas( talk) 09:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose a minor classification system in the ordering of dates in the "Events", "Births", and "Deaths" section of the date articles.
Here's what it looks like now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=January_1&oldid=187783938
And here's what I propose to make it look like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=January_1&oldid=187783838
Of course, I'd personally go through and do it all myself, but it's somewhat cumbersome to go through a thousand lines of text. In addition, my section divisions aren't that space-consuming, and they help a lot.
Lumberjake ( talk) 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice that most of the events on Days of the Year pages are very poorly sourced -- only generic links to a couple news sites' "on this day" sites, and almost no footnotes. I would like to propose a new task for the group of bringing the Days of the Year into compliance with the Wikipedia:Citing sources style guideline. Comments? -- M @ r ē ino 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally, the new style dates are used for entries in Wikicalendar articles but I think it would be good to add that fact to the style guide. In rare instances, entries are listed on both the new and old style dates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. new style must be the rule and old style must be kept for exceptions. in wikicalendar, birth date of someone like
Anton Chekhov better be mentioned in newstyle unless there is an annual global event for him on the oldstyle date. but it is irreasonable to mention an event like Russia october revolution on its newstyle date because it would not be on october anymore !
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
recently I had troubles about what should be listed for births and deaths and i also made troubles for others. I listed names of famous films of filmmakers and I listed famous inventions of scientists and inventors. almost all I did in this regard was reverted. I did not expect revertion because I saw the same pattern for Guitarists for example. atlast I reached to this sentence presented to me by
user:Arthur Rubin :"It's the current convention that Presidents, royalty, nobel laureates, and musicians are further identified."
is it right ? is it the current convention ? anybody else beside athletes and their medals ? ok. I saw discussions on this issue on
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 4 leaded by Fabricationary and I just made this number 2 post to see if these current conventions are temporarily agreed upon. if anybody remember anything else beside what I have mentioned then please write.
I suggest a guideline added to wikicalendar guidlines in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year according to what should be listed for births and death. that would reduce confusions for newcomers like me.
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
you may find the context - sure not the full context - at the bottom of this page:
User talk:Arthur Rubin
Lenin1870to1924 (
talk) 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please consider BlackHistoryDaily.com for the External Links section of the Days of the year.
Not only is this site a comprehensive resource for the African American community; there is a also static page for every day of the year which makes it relevant and applicable to all of the articles in Days of the year.
I have been looking for information on how to create a template similar to the New York Times daily update. The naming protocol on our site is http://www.blackhistorydaily.com/on_this_day/February_19/ (The monthname underscore day of month)
This addition to the day of the year will add diversity to the days of the year, the black community makes up over 12% of the U.S. population. I look forward to a reply. Bradhemmings ( talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Black History deserves recognition and that is why there is a Black History Month in the United States. While Black History may not be distinct or separate from all other history it often gets lost or distorted. What others may deem not "worth remembering" may be of signifcant value to the black community. Canada is given its own section in the external links? Isn't Canadian history also history? Canadians would like to be able to refer specifically and directly to their own history and so would blacks. There is no-one better to tell your story than yourself. If Wikipedia is truly reflective of the World we live in, we should give everyone the opportunity to tell to access content that is important and relevant to them. Bradhemmings ( talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important to settle what the roles of the WP:DAYS and the WP:NGS pages will be so that they can be crafted accordingly. I propose the following:
-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the template for the calendar that is on all of the Wikicalendar articles. The old one is {{JanuaryCalendar}} and the new one is temporarily at User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar. Here they are side by side for comparison (old on the right) Edited: {{JanuaryCalendar}} {{User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar}} Removed because they are both the same now End Edit. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Slight coloring and size difference can be fixed if needed. The reason for doing this is that the old one is dependent on Template:JanuaryCalendar2008 and Template:JanuaryCalendar2008Source and these need to be created each year. The version that I've written use only the Template:Calendar/MonthStartTue set of templates (one for each day of the week). The new version calculates what day the first of the month is and then uses that to create the calendar. It should be maintenance free. I'd like to get some input on it before I replace the templates. Another great feature of the way I did it is that it will only take 12 edits to the {{JanuaryCalendar}} templates to make the change. I'm also thinking that with just a little more work, I could turn the 12 templates into one. I also noticed that the MonthStartTue templates use Monday as the first day of the week. That can be fixed very simply with a new version of those templates if the existing ones cannot be changed (I already have new versions written). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Done: All of the calendar templates have been updated. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)