Talk:May 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Days of the year
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a Wikiproject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.
 
This box: viewtalkedit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

May 21: Navy Day in Chile

Suharto

More anniversaries: May 20 May 21 May 22

It is now August 22, 2014 (UTC) – Reload this page

I added the date of the last event for 3PW which I think is as important as any other date in this entry.

Champions League 2008[edit]

The final (and tournement) finished in Moscow on May the 22nd (after midnight) so the Man Utd winning third trophy item has been moved to that date (137.108.145.250 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

Battle of Long Sault[edit]

I have removed an event that looked like this

  • 1660 In Long Sault, French Garrison commander Adam Dollard-Des-Ormeaux & his remaing caravan meet their demise after a sudden explosion of a lit & hurled powder keg hits a wooden barrier.

It certainly needed some cleanup, and it's notability is perhaps questionable (I'd be OK with it tho). I removed it because I don't think it occurred on May 21, and researching this it seems the exact date of the end of the battle is unknown. This isn't really surprising as none of the French survived. The best reference I can find that discusses the dates is this one, which states "According to Chaumonot, the battle of the Long Sault was begun on 2 May; according to Radisson and Chaumonot it probably lasted seven days, eight according to Dollier de Casson and ten according to the Relation. If we except the five survivors who fell into the enemy’s hands, Dollard and his companions must have perished between 9 and 12 May 1660". As the date is not known exactly this event doesn't belong on a DOY page, although I suppose it could be added to the 1660 article. Winston365 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

End times prediction date[edit]

C'mon, let 2011 be "End of the World/Judgment Day/666 Satans!!!111!!" on May 21st. Show the world that Wikipedia has a sense of ironic humor (Uncyclopedia doesn't count). The world demands the ability to look up May 21st on Wikipedia, see "Judgment Day" on the screen for 2011, and look at our buddy and go, "Even Wikipedia has it, yes!!" and high-five him. 72.145.217.42 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but not for comedic value - this is a newsworthy event and should be listed on this page with some factual information, such as the groups who believe this is the end of the world, why, and what steps have been taken. I'm not a believer, but many come to this page for research on the 'judgment day' of May 21 and we need to provide them with some info. Sam metal (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Levity and WP:IDONTLIKEIT aside, this item has been restored to the events section. People are coming here expecting to see it and it's been linked to the appropriate article (2011 end times prediction). Doesn't matter if it's ridiculous or not (it is). The ad campaign launched by this man and his devotees is receiving significant media attention to meet WP:GNG and is focused entirely around this one date which makes it appropriate for inclusion in this list.--RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
C'mon, why do you think this page is protected? There is no consensus to add this nonsense. TL565 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It's protected from vandalism which is why it's a semi-protection not full protection.--RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It isn't notable because a radio host says its the end of the world. Judging from your name, of course you would think so. People should not be expecting it to be on this page. It is always removed from the 2011 page if added. This page lists factual events, not outrageous predictions. It was protected because people were adding the same thing. TL565 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you must know what I think of what this radio host says, I think he's full of crap, but it doesn't matter what you or I think, It's notable, Wikipedia:Days of the year does not limit entries to "factual events" in fact it meets the Major dates in the history of world religion. item in the guideline, The only objection I'm seeing to an neutral entry is yours with the only comment of "it's nonsense". I agree it's nonsense but it's still notable, has an article that's notable and it's clear that this event is driving people to this page which demonstrates that people expect to see it here. As for protection, It's protected from vandalism which is why it's a semi-protection not full protection, big difference. Looking at the history, several editors have reverted edits, but that's been in reaction to vandalism. --RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it notable? I predict the world is going to end tomorrow, should we add that in? It has been reverted many times on the 2011 page. The IPs were adding the same thing you added, but that's vandalism? The reason for the protection states "Protected until after "Judgment Day", which means that the date should not be added. TL565 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The IPs weren't adding the same thing I added. Their wording stated it as a fact that it will happen. My wording points to the predication which is far more nuetral and treats it the same way it's being treated in the media. You seem very very opposed to any coverage of this in Wikipedia. I agree that the predication is ridiculous but again that doesn't matter. It meets notability guidelines. If you disagree, feel free to nominate the article itself for deletion, I dont think you'll be sucessful though.--RadioFan (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Future events do not go on days of the year articles. These pages are for historical events and until this event is history and is proven to have a worldwide impact, it can't be on this page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
TL565, when MSNBC and the Washington Post run stories about your prediction and campaign to spread it, then you may feel very free to add your own page about it. If you'd bother to visit the page link, you would already know the answer to "how is it notable?". That said, I'd have to agree with Mufka. This date page really only lists significant events that have actually happened and the prediction really doesn't make the cut. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, only few minor articles, but its not like its dominating the news. I'd say it's notable to have its own page about the prediction, but to link it to a day of the year page is not. TL565 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What of the readers that are coming here expecting to see an entry for this? It's pretty clear from recent activity that it's picked up, what else would people be coming here for? Should WP:COMMONSENSE tell us that an entry here is in the best interest of the project? --RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they're expecting to see something. I do it too, but to add it just for the sake of adding a link is not enough. If people really are interested, they will find it eventually. TL565 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
EC - They'll see that this is a page for historical events and be a little disappointed. The project won't be harmed by this fact. If there were an article about the subject, I'd consider a hat note if it is determined that a lot of people are hitting this article looking for it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion. Anyone have any objections?--RadioFan (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It couldn't hurt to have it in, considering it's a one off thing and won't come around next year (whether that be the prediction or Judgement Day) and because it's in the news I support the notion that it should go in. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Proposal[edit]

Since there is resistance to adding a link to the article on the predicted end times, and to avoid an edit war, I'll put it out there as a proposal. I believe this is an appropriate addition to this list because of the notability of the subject (it's receiving sufficient coverage in reliable sources that the article easily meets WP:GNG), the fact that the topic is very date centric and that recent traffic to the May 21 article make it clear that people are coming here expecting to see an entry. Here is the proposed wording. I believe it is sufficiently neutral to alleive any encyclopedic concerns and welcome comments:

I don't have a strong stance on whether it should be on this page (except that it will make it easier for people searching for that article to find it, as there is no ideal titles for it), but I will note that it's not the date predicted as the end of the world; it's the date predicated for the Rapture. Under that timetable, the end of the world isn't until October 21. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The proposed entry above is based on the article title. If that's not correct it should be noted there.--RadioFan (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The article title is 2011 end times prediction; the end times covers the entire period from the May 21, 2011 rapture to the October 21, 2011 end of the world. -Nat Gertler (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for an alternative wording for this list?--RadioFan (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
What you have, only ending with either as the Rapture or as the the start of the end times. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Whatever it's called it, it's a future event and is specifically excluded by WP:DOY. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:DOY is a guideline, not policy, a little WP:COMMONSENSE mixed with some consensus overrides that guideline. Traffic to this article is up 10-20x over this time last year. There's a lot of readers who expect to see it here, does that not count for something? Do we see ourselves as editors as counting for more?--RadioFan (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
What I was trying get at before, maybe I didn't say it the right way, but this article lists historic events. If you add the prediction, you can just see that it doesn't really match with the rest of the events. I agree that this page is for historical events that already happened and not someone predicting what will happen. I'm not sure if WP:CRYSTAL would apply here. TL565 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL does apply. Since the article is for historical events, we can't know if this one will have a historical significance before it happens. The proposal suggests adding something that just doesn't belong here. It's not what these pages are for. You won't find any future event on any date article. There's a reason for that. The hat note suggestion seems like a good compromise. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Not to sound clueless, but what exactly is hat note? Is it like those "If your looking for" notes at top of an article? TL565 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. WP:HATNOTE. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree then, but only if it's temporary. I doubt it will have any long term significance. We'll just have to see. TL565 (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, after looking at WP:HATNOTE, what would be the reason for the hat note? Would recent news or page traffic be enough to put a hat note? TL565 (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm accepting on good faith the assertion that the higher than normal traffic to the page is due to people looking for this event. If these people are looking for something else that they're not finding, then a hat note would be appropriate. If a reasonable person could type in May 21 and expect to find information about this story/event/whatever, then a hat note is appropriate. Hat notes generally aren't temporary, but it may be the only thing that can gain consensus. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Definitely either list it or put up a hatnote; the hatnote might be preferable since this page is not about the future. But seriously, this page was viewed yesterday by 21,000 people, as compared to the usual less-than-5000. Many of them are clearly looking for 2011 End Times prediction; the publicity this week has been massive. (See Current Google News search results) It would be simple courtesy to put a note at the top that says "This page lists historical events and recurring commemorations. For the prediction that the Christian Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011, see 2011 End Times prediction." The sooner this is done the better. The hatnote could be taken down after site traffic returns to something approaching normal. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have reasonable consensus on a temporary hat note, which has been added. I've tried to incorporate comments about the wording but am open to other wordings of course. The hat note should remain until the date has passed or the semi-protection removed, which ever is longer.--RadioFan (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth metrics for the article have been updated for today (it, works on UTC) and today's hits are 22.5k.
And to be clear - while one might expect traffic for any date to be spiking a bit as the date approaches, the views of May 21 are running about 10 times the viewings for May 20. Running that temporary hat note seems quite appropriate in this circumstance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the notion that it should be included because as stated above it is what people would be looking for as I know it's been referenced in several newspapers. Also considering it's a one off thing no matter whether he's wrong or it is the Rapture day. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The hat note is a good compromise. I think we can leave it at that. If this event proves to be correct tomorrow (and I'll go out on a limb and say that we all know it absolutely won't be), then we can certainly consider adding it as an event - once it is history. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't notice it myself, but, considering I have been told my eternal destination is one of the warmer climates by many people with different beliefs, I suppose I personally might not anyway. Use of the hat note seems a reasonable compromise under the existing conditions. I have reservations about use of such hat notes in general. For instance, we could just as easily list upcoming national elections of various countries for the same reasons, as well as final episodes of longrunning TV shows, dates for widespread release of upcoming movies, and the like, particularly if the advertising campaigns stress the relevant date. Also, I think, under the circumstances, that now, considering that we're all still here (we are all still here, right?), maybe now the hat note might be removed and the material might be moved directly into the body of the article as an end-of-the-world proposal which apparently didn't live up to the advance publicity. Personally, I'm not sure if all such proposals should be included in these articles, given their number, and that might be worth some degree of broader discussion. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I say remove the hat but add it to the history section of the article for sure. The hat I think is kinda pointless to keep, like, 3 months from now, but as a historical date thing, I totally believe it's notable to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.150.30 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Article hits are still abnormally high so the hat note is still appropriate. It still shouldn't be included as an event since an event that didn't happen isn't all that notable and this won't be notable in the long term. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to calrify, the topic is notable and is significant in that it received international media attention and will likely be notable in the long term as it's expected that the event will be referenced each time a end of world prophesy is generated again, and it will happen again. Consensus was that a hat note was more appropriate rather than an entry in the article not because of the notability of the topic but because it did not meet the guidelines for inclusion in date articles, which are very specific. All that being said, the hat note should stay until traffic to the article returns to normal levels, lets check back the end of the week.--RadioFan (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
And, as per policies and guidelines, notability is not temporary. It certainly received extensive international coverage, and I have a feeling the October date probably will receive significant coverage in October as well, maybe meriting the same sort of treatment there in time. Having said all that, the guidelines are still just guidelines, not policies. If it is just based on the guidelines that the material wasn't included, I think in a few cases the guidelines could not be followed, and that, at least for the next several years, this prediction (and, maybe, if the attention is similar, the now-rescheduled October event) might be sufficiently notable to qualify as exceptions. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove hat note?[edit]

Traffic on this page has returned to normal. Should the note be removed now? TL565 (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

While traffic is not as large as it was, it's still in the 800-hits range, whereas traffic for the May 20 and May 22 dates are in the 400 range. So while this is actually significantly down for all the articles from the same time last year, it does suggest that a large portion of the traffic this page is now getting is due to some specific momentary interest in May 21, which seems likely due to the subject of the hatnote. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)