To report an error when this list is currently on the
Main Page, see
Main Page errors. Please remember that this list defers to the supporting articles, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
Before making a suggestion, please read the
selected anniversaries guidelines. Please remember that this list usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
To discuss improvements to the corresponding
April 15 article, see
Talk:April 15 instead.
Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is [Insert event here], an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed, not posted?
A1: Relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted. Any given day of the year can have a great many
important or significant historical events. The problem is that there is generally only room on the Main Page to list about 5 events at a time, so not everything can be posted.
As stated on
Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page, the items and events posted on the Main Page are chosen based more on how
well they are written, not based on how much important or significant their subjects are. It is easier for admins to select a well-written,
cited,
verifiable article over a poor one versus trying to determine objectively how much a subject is important or significant.
Keep in mind that the quality requirements only apply to the selected bolded article, not the other links. Thus, an event may qualify for multiple dates in a year if there is an article written in a
summary style and an article providing detailed content; if one of those pages have cleanup issues, the other page can be bolded as an alternate.
Another criterion is to maintain some variety of topics, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism, or the belief that the world stops at the edge of the
English-speaking world. Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure. In addition, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled
featured article or
featured picture.
Q2: There are way too many 20th-century events listed. Why aren't there more events from the 19th century and before?
Q3: This page seems to be biased toward events based in [Insert country or region here]. What can be done about it?
A3: This again is attributed to the
systemic bias of Wikipedia. Many users are generally more interested in working on good, well-written articles pertaining to their home country. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there will be more English-speaking users, and thus more articles pertaining to English-speaking countries. And if there are more users who are from the
United States, there will probably be more well-written articles about events based in the United States. Again, if you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q4: Why is the birthday/death anniversary of [Insert name here] not listed?
A4: There are only four slots available for birth and death anniversaries. As with the events, article quality and diversity in time period, geography, and reason for notability are all contributing factors in whether an article gets selected for inclusion.
Q5: Are the holidays/observances listed in any particular order?
A5: Yes, there is a specified order: International observances first, then alphabetically by where observed.
Q6: Some of the holidays/observances that are listed have dates in parentheses beside them. What do they mean?
A6: There are two reasons that some holidays/observances have dates next to them:
Non-
Gregorian-based holidays/observances are marked with the current year as a reminder to others that their dates do in fact vary from year to year.
National Days,
Independence Days, and other holidays celebrating the nationhood of a country are generally marked by the year of the significant historic date being observed.
the image with the tanks took place in early June of 1989. the image should not be used for April 15.
Kingturtle 08:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And yet that photo of Jackie Robinson was taken after the event depicted on this page. --
mav
Touche...but I see a difference between a portrait and an actual event. Portraits tend to be "timeless." But an image of historical context should be accurate date-wise.
Kingturtle 16:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Titanic
I think mention of the RMS Titanic belongs on April 15, not 14. The important part of the Titanic event happened on April 15 (meaning the actually sinking) The only actual significant part of the Titanic disaster that happened on April 14 was striking the iceberg
MechBrowman 21:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's okay on either day, as long as the item is accurately worded. Hitting the iceberg was the critical starting point of the sinking, which took hours. Anyway, a 5th item is needed for the SA template for April 14th, while the template for the 15th has 6 items, i.e. 1 too many. Hence the move seems alright to me. ... However, for 2006, the bombing of Mumbai on April 14th, 1944 (See
Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 14.) may bump the Titanic item back to April 15th to avoid featuring 2 catastrophes on the same day .... How's that ? :-) --
PFHLai 16:21, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
Now that I thought about it, it doesn't matter too much since most people know what happens to Titanic after it hits the iceberg, but if April 15 ever has room (for whatever reason) Titanic should be moved back.
MechBrowman 16:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
The item on boxing would probably be the first to go .... --
PFHLai 16:52, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
Jackie Robinson
"1947 - African American Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers broke the color line in professional baseball"
This was not the first time he played professional baseball (surely the Negro League was professional, not to mention the minor league). It was his debut in
Major League Baseball. So I think that the quoted item should say
Major League Baseball in place of professional baseball.
DHR 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I've edited the line for next year. Is it better now ? --
PFHLai 05:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)reply
"1947 - African American Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers played his first game in Major League Baseball, breaking the color line in professional baseball"
Thanks! Unfortunately, this still isn't right. Surely the colour line in professional baseball was broken by or before Jackie Robinson played for the Montreal Royals 1946. The Royals were a professional team and they were mostly white (unlike the Negro Leagues). Again, replacing the remaining "professional baseball" with "Major League Baseball" would make this correct. When claiming a first, it is important to make the claim accurate.
DHR 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Hmmm.... "the color line in professional baseball" seems ill-defined. Let's avoid the debate on which color line being 'the' color line. I'm looking for a way to keep the link to
Professional baseball, as that page actually has a paragraph about Robinson. How about "a key step towards
racial desegregation in
professional baseball" ? --
PFHLai 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Found a better page:
Baseball color line. I've completely rewritten the line. How is it now ? --
PFHLai 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
"1947 - Jackie Robinson, the first African American to break the baseball color line, played his first game in Major League Baseball as a first baseman with the Brooklyn Dodgers"
Thanks again. Much better. I think that it is correct but a bit misleading. It might be improved as "1947 - Jackie Robinson, the first African American to break the baseball color line, became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball on this date." This is still awkward. The problem is that the second portion justifies the anniversary (first in MLB) but the first part has the link to the relevant article (baseball color line). Another thought: "
1947 -
Jackie Robinson became the first
African American to play in
Major League Baseball (see the
baseball color line)". Details can be added to taste (I'm trying to be concise).
DHR 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Can we avoid the brackets ? Let me think .... --
PFHLai 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, forgot that
Hillsborough Stadium could have been bolded as the alternative selected article. Cheers.
Zzyzx11 (
talk) 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Thirded. A story about McDonald's opening a ninth store? Really? I know that the OTD decisions aren't based on importance/signifance but it seems slightly wrong...
It's Malpass 93! (
drop me a ___) 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Walter O'Malley vs. Jackie Robinson
With the addition of
this edit and the accompanying hidden comment, I'm kinda of concerned if we did have to choose between one or the other. If both articles are equal in terms of the "well-written article" criterion, it seems to me there might be more complaints from baseball fans if O'Malley was chosen ahead of Robinson. Yes, I know that Robinson has been posted here for 5+ years, but from what I have read about baseball, there was an extremely notable reason why, among others, Robinson's jersey number, 42, was retired by every Major League Baseball team in 1997 – and that breaking the color barrier seemed to have much more impact to the sport than expanding to the West Coast. Cheers.
Zzyzx11 (
talk) 02:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
No Lincoln?
No Lincoln assassination in "on this day"? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kenn5 (
talk •
contribs) 09:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was listed in ineligible list because of needing expansion which is I think resolved by now. It has appeared two times on the main page in the On this day box. --
Mhhossein (
talk) 13:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I found no problem with articles in eligible list.
Mhhossein (
talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
1912 – The passenger liner 'RMS Titanic sank (pictured) about two hours and forty minutes after colliding with an iceberg, killing more than 1,500 people.
– Quibble with sentence structure: The above can be understood as saying that 1,500 died in the collision with the iceberg. Suggested rewording:
"The ocean liner RMS Titanic sank (pictured) about two hours and forty minutes after colliding with an iceberg, and more than 1,500 people died from drowning or exposure."
Sca (
talk) 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
How about it: "The ocean liner RMS Titanic .... , the event left more than 1,500 people dead."?
Mhhossein (
talk) 05:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Or "...iceberg, as a result of which..." – or "...iceberg, resulting in the deaths of ...."
Sca (
talk) 14:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, he'll go in for sure next year, unless he's TFA or POTD. Round-number anniversaries usually get priority. —howcheng {
chat} 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)reply
To report an error when this list is currently on the
Main Page, see
Main Page errors. Please remember that this list defers to the supporting articles, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
Before making a suggestion, please read the
selected anniversaries guidelines. Please remember that this list usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
To discuss improvements to the corresponding
April 15 article, see
Talk:April 15 instead.
Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is [Insert event here], an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed, not posted?
A1: Relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted. Any given day of the year can have a great many
important or significant historical events. The problem is that there is generally only room on the Main Page to list about 5 events at a time, so not everything can be posted.
As stated on
Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page, the items and events posted on the Main Page are chosen based more on how
well they are written, not based on how much important or significant their subjects are. It is easier for admins to select a well-written,
cited,
verifiable article over a poor one versus trying to determine objectively how much a subject is important or significant.
Keep in mind that the quality requirements only apply to the selected bolded article, not the other links. Thus, an event may qualify for multiple dates in a year if there is an article written in a
summary style and an article providing detailed content; if one of those pages have cleanup issues, the other page can be bolded as an alternate.
Another criterion is to maintain some variety of topics, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism, or the belief that the world stops at the edge of the
English-speaking world. Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure. In addition, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled
featured article or
featured picture.
Q2: There are way too many 20th-century events listed. Why aren't there more events from the 19th century and before?
Q3: This page seems to be biased toward events based in [Insert country or region here]. What can be done about it?
A3: This again is attributed to the
systemic bias of Wikipedia. Many users are generally more interested in working on good, well-written articles pertaining to their home country. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there will be more English-speaking users, and thus more articles pertaining to English-speaking countries. And if there are more users who are from the
United States, there will probably be more well-written articles about events based in the United States. Again, if you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q4: Why is the birthday/death anniversary of [Insert name here] not listed?
A4: There are only four slots available for birth and death anniversaries. As with the events, article quality and diversity in time period, geography, and reason for notability are all contributing factors in whether an article gets selected for inclusion.
Q5: Are the holidays/observances listed in any particular order?
A5: Yes, there is a specified order: International observances first, then alphabetically by where observed.
Q6: Some of the holidays/observances that are listed have dates in parentheses beside them. What do they mean?
A6: There are two reasons that some holidays/observances have dates next to them:
Non-
Gregorian-based holidays/observances are marked with the current year as a reminder to others that their dates do in fact vary from year to year.
National Days,
Independence Days, and other holidays celebrating the nationhood of a country are generally marked by the year of the significant historic date being observed.
the image with the tanks took place in early June of 1989. the image should not be used for April 15.
Kingturtle 08:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And yet that photo of Jackie Robinson was taken after the event depicted on this page. --
mav
Touche...but I see a difference between a portrait and an actual event. Portraits tend to be "timeless." But an image of historical context should be accurate date-wise.
Kingturtle 16:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Titanic
I think mention of the RMS Titanic belongs on April 15, not 14. The important part of the Titanic event happened on April 15 (meaning the actually sinking) The only actual significant part of the Titanic disaster that happened on April 14 was striking the iceberg
MechBrowman 21:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's okay on either day, as long as the item is accurately worded. Hitting the iceberg was the critical starting point of the sinking, which took hours. Anyway, a 5th item is needed for the SA template for April 14th, while the template for the 15th has 6 items, i.e. 1 too many. Hence the move seems alright to me. ... However, for 2006, the bombing of Mumbai on April 14th, 1944 (See
Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 14.) may bump the Titanic item back to April 15th to avoid featuring 2 catastrophes on the same day .... How's that ? :-) --
PFHLai 16:21, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
Now that I thought about it, it doesn't matter too much since most people know what happens to Titanic after it hits the iceberg, but if April 15 ever has room (for whatever reason) Titanic should be moved back.
MechBrowman 16:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
The item on boxing would probably be the first to go .... --
PFHLai 16:52, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
Jackie Robinson
"1947 - African American Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers broke the color line in professional baseball"
This was not the first time he played professional baseball (surely the Negro League was professional, not to mention the minor league). It was his debut in
Major League Baseball. So I think that the quoted item should say
Major League Baseball in place of professional baseball.
DHR 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I've edited the line for next year. Is it better now ? --
PFHLai 05:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)reply
"1947 - African American Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers played his first game in Major League Baseball, breaking the color line in professional baseball"
Thanks! Unfortunately, this still isn't right. Surely the colour line in professional baseball was broken by or before Jackie Robinson played for the Montreal Royals 1946. The Royals were a professional team and they were mostly white (unlike the Negro Leagues). Again, replacing the remaining "professional baseball" with "Major League Baseball" would make this correct. When claiming a first, it is important to make the claim accurate.
DHR 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Hmmm.... "the color line in professional baseball" seems ill-defined. Let's avoid the debate on which color line being 'the' color line. I'm looking for a way to keep the link to
Professional baseball, as that page actually has a paragraph about Robinson. How about "a key step towards
racial desegregation in
professional baseball" ? --
PFHLai 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Found a better page:
Baseball color line. I've completely rewritten the line. How is it now ? --
PFHLai 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
"1947 - Jackie Robinson, the first African American to break the baseball color line, played his first game in Major League Baseball as a first baseman with the Brooklyn Dodgers"
Thanks again. Much better. I think that it is correct but a bit misleading. It might be improved as "1947 - Jackie Robinson, the first African American to break the baseball color line, became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball on this date." This is still awkward. The problem is that the second portion justifies the anniversary (first in MLB) but the first part has the link to the relevant article (baseball color line). Another thought: "
1947 -
Jackie Robinson became the first
African American to play in
Major League Baseball (see the
baseball color line)". Details can be added to taste (I'm trying to be concise).
DHR 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Can we avoid the brackets ? Let me think .... --
PFHLai 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Sorry, forgot that
Hillsborough Stadium could have been bolded as the alternative selected article. Cheers.
Zzyzx11 (
talk) 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Thirded. A story about McDonald's opening a ninth store? Really? I know that the OTD decisions aren't based on importance/signifance but it seems slightly wrong...
It's Malpass 93! (
drop me a ___) 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Walter O'Malley vs. Jackie Robinson
With the addition of
this edit and the accompanying hidden comment, I'm kinda of concerned if we did have to choose between one or the other. If both articles are equal in terms of the "well-written article" criterion, it seems to me there might be more complaints from baseball fans if O'Malley was chosen ahead of Robinson. Yes, I know that Robinson has been posted here for 5+ years, but from what I have read about baseball, there was an extremely notable reason why, among others, Robinson's jersey number, 42, was retired by every Major League Baseball team in 1997 – and that breaking the color barrier seemed to have much more impact to the sport than expanding to the West Coast. Cheers.
Zzyzx11 (
talk) 02:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
No Lincoln?
No Lincoln assassination in "on this day"? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kenn5 (
talk •
contribs) 09:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was listed in ineligible list because of needing expansion which is I think resolved by now. It has appeared two times on the main page in the On this day box. --
Mhhossein (
talk) 13:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I found no problem with articles in eligible list.
Mhhossein (
talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
1912 – The passenger liner 'RMS Titanic sank (pictured) about two hours and forty minutes after colliding with an iceberg, killing more than 1,500 people.
– Quibble with sentence structure: The above can be understood as saying that 1,500 died in the collision with the iceberg. Suggested rewording:
"The ocean liner RMS Titanic sank (pictured) about two hours and forty minutes after colliding with an iceberg, and more than 1,500 people died from drowning or exposure."
Sca (
talk) 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
How about it: "The ocean liner RMS Titanic .... , the event left more than 1,500 people dead."?
Mhhossein (
talk) 05:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Or "...iceberg, as a result of which..." – or "...iceberg, resulting in the deaths of ...."
Sca (
talk) 14:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, he'll go in for sure next year, unless he's TFA or POTD. Round-number anniversaries usually get priority. —howcheng {
chat} 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)reply