Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 309: Line 309:


Just getting a pulse check on a holdover that I don't think is necessary. The [[Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus]] is traditionally said to have been dedicated on 13 September 509 BC. It's currently marked "ineligible" as an "uncertain date". Considering that we can write OTD hooks for ourselves and are not restricted to copying and pasting old ones, should "date is traditional/uncertain" be a hard ruleout, even if the traditional status is made explicit in the hook ("509 BC: The traditional date for when the '''[[Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus]]''', the most important temple in Ancient Rome, was dedicated")? The hook on the dropdown doesn't make the uncertainty explicit, which ''would'' be problematic (to put it one way: if the dropdowns didn't exist, it'd surprise me if anyone wrote a hook from first principles that didn't mark it as uncertain). I'd prefer to be able to run contextualized-traditional-dates, because very little that predates the Julian and Gregorian calendars has an agreed-upon date down to the day and it's a significant problem otherwise for running far back in history. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>]] 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Just getting a pulse check on a holdover that I don't think is necessary. The [[Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus]] is traditionally said to have been dedicated on 13 September 509 BC. It's currently marked "ineligible" as an "uncertain date". Considering that we can write OTD hooks for ourselves and are not restricted to copying and pasting old ones, should "date is traditional/uncertain" be a hard ruleout, even if the traditional status is made explicit in the hook ("509 BC: The traditional date for when the '''[[Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus]]''', the most important temple in Ancient Rome, was dedicated")? The hook on the dropdown doesn't make the uncertainty explicit, which ''would'' be problematic (to put it one way: if the dropdowns didn't exist, it'd surprise me if anyone wrote a hook from first principles that didn't mark it as uncertain). I'd prefer to be able to run contextualized-traditional-dates, because very little that predates the Julian and Gregorian calendars has an agreed-upon date down to the day and it's a significant problem otherwise for running far back in history. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>]] 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

:[[User:Vaticidalprophet]], that's tricky. I'll tell you my first opinion upon reading this, but am open to a guidelines change if warranted. My thought process is that readers of the Main page expect definite events that happened x years ago, and that if they click on the article, they can find more information about it. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus say {{tq|Traditionally the Temple was dedicated on September 13, the founding year of the Roman Republic, 509 BCE according to Livy. According to Dionysius, it was consecrated two years later in 507 BCE.}} This uncertainty leads to readers not getting a big impact of "this even definitely happened ten years ago." '''My inclination is to say that the procedure should remain the same, and that we should rule out any uncertain dates.''' This is just my first reaction, feel free to reply with your thoughts. [[User:HeartGlow30797|'''<span style="color:red; text-shadow:#ffdf00 0.0em 0.0em 2.0em">Heart</span>''']] <sup><small>[[User talk:HeartGlow30797|''(talk)'']]</small></sup> 14:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:56, 1 September 2023

To make sure articles are not selected (bolded item) more than once, search for the article's name at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/All.

Articles for improvement

current suggestions (with relevant date)
Please list articles here that need improvement before listing at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries.
Anyone may list an article, preferably discussing on the talk page (or here briefly) why it fails Selected_anniversaries_criteria.

July checks

All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and corrected - Dumelow (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 07:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are articles selected for OTD?

I noticed when I came back that Elisabeth Geleerd, an article I wrote, had become part of the OTD rotation for her birth/death dates without me nominating it. I quite like this -- it gets a niche article some attention and has encouraged me to do a little more work on it -- but I'm curious how the decisions are made to find and list articles that are eligible but haven't been nominated. I've poked around a little and seen e.g. the quarry searches for FA/GAs on a given date. I'm also aware from reading through this page that there's a desire to get more people involved in the OTD process, so it'd be interesting to know a little more about the decisionmaking here and how to get into it yourself (it reminds me more than a little of DYK prepbuilding). Vaticidalprophet 01:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet, sorry for late reply I have been a bit busy recently. Thanks for your interest in OTD. I've only been involved for a few months but at the moment essentially each day is assembled by me (I am lucky in that there are 2-3 editors who also check each date page afterward and copyedit or remove various mistakes).
I try to assemble a complete fresh set for each day from entries in the "eligible" section of the OTD page (Eg Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 27), the results from the WikiData queries for GAs and FAS and the encyclopaedia date pages (eg. July 27). It's a bit of a struggle sometimes and always pressure to keep ahead. In a way it is similar to DYK pre-building except without the review and approval process. I try to include a variety of subjects from different regions of the world (particularly non-English-speaking countries), different eras (always hard to find good pre-1800 content), different subjects (there are a lot of good military history, disaster and weather articles but very little in the arts) and, where possible, a balance of men and women. The main checks to make are that the article is decent enough (citations are the main issue) and the blurb fact is mentioned in the article and, where possible to check, is stated in the source cited.
I'm glad I was able to feature your article, it's nice to feature good content from unusual areas. It'd be great to get more people involved in OTD but so far my attempts haven't led to much success. If you want to help out that'd be really useful. Feel free to choose a date I haven't sorted from the list above and have a go. There's really not much that you can get wrong and I'd be happy to check over your selections if you like. All the best - Dumelow (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dumelow -- I've just tested out Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 31. Do we usually swap all five each year or is swapping out 2-3 plus the image enough? Was also trying to get the deaths/births, but the query kept timing out, so I'll try that part later. Vaticidalprophet 07:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaticidalprophet, thanks so much, that looks good. I generally try to swap all of the articles out but it depends what is available to replace them, I'd say 4 out of 5 is decent. Couple of notes: Electoral system of Australia is ineligible under the OTD criteria as it has an orange article quality tag (for out of date info) and I couldn't find support for 620 million people for the India blackout article, the cited sources said 600 million and 700 million, so perhaps go with "at least 600 million"? Don't feel like you have to do a whole day either, as long as you note what you've done on the date list above feel free to do a couple of blurbs or births/deaths as you get time. A quick note that we have recently expanded to 4 births/deaths now too - Dumelow (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Those two were both 2022 holdovers, so I'll find swaps for them. I noticed the births/deaths expansion too, so will keep that in mind. Vaticidalprophet 07:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August checks

I'm going to be unable to edit in the first week of August so trying to get ahead - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vaticidalprophet 09:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 10:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 14:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 14:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All checked and rotated - Dumelow (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 00:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 13:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 11:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 06:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This is my first rotation, I believe I checked everything! Heart (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HeartGlow30797, thanks so much for helping out here, it is much appreciated particularly as I haven't been able to edit recently. Looks good, I just had a couple of comments - Dumelow (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff HeartGlow30797, I added that citation to the lead of the election article where it mentions the first use for an election. Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Again feedback is appreciated, leave it in Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/August 12#2023 rationale Heart (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have done so - Dumelow (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I wanna try to have at least 14 days ahead. Heart (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I made some very minor changes - Dumelow (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All caught up! Again, please give feedback on any of my selections so I can improve! Heart (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, though I wonder if the wording of the Whitehead blurb could be improved, per WP:alleged? I try to include some pre-1700 dates but this is not always possible given our coverage is heavily skewed to modern times - Dumelow (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the strange wording as well, I can think of no great options. Here are some possible options:
I don't like any of these but these were the best I could come up with. Perhaps User:Ravenpuff has any ideas? If nothing comes up, a swap might need to take place with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Heart (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be best to swap this one out for now. It's hard to make a claim to the importance of the event when there is clear doubt about whether it happened - Dumelow (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I put in Rocky Horror. Thanks! Heart (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Heart (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, I made some minor wording changes. Three of the births/deaths are 20th/21st century North American figures, is some variety possible here? - Dumelow (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I have swapped one out for more balance. Heart (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done getting ahead for tomorrow Heart (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The only thing I noted was that I couldn't see a citation for the death date of John II of Trebizond - Dumelow (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed and swapped. Thanks so much! Heart (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Heart (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good HeartGlow30797, I made some minor wording changes. I couldn't find a citation for the birthdate of Tarja Turunen? - Dumelow (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed and swapped. Thanks, Heart (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Heart (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change to the Hildegard Trabant blurb as the part about her being the only person with a record of loyalty to the east failed verification. I couldn't see where the birthdate of Cameron White was cited? - Dumelow (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron White has been addressed. Heart (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Please double check this. Heart (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tambov Rebellion was already featured this year on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 12, I made one edit to the casualty numbers on the bus bombing as the cited source didn't support the unborn child. Missy Higgins doesn't have a citation for the birthdate - Dumelow (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a citation to the info box. Heart (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dumelow, I have added 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) as I found it interesting during a web search. Let me know if the blurb looks okay or if it needs to be switched out. Heart (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Feedback is still much appreciated as I learn how to improve doing this. Heart (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, the only thing I found was that the date of birth for Phil Lynott is not cited (stated only in lead and infobox) - Dumelow (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added to the infobox! Thanks, Heart (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 21

 Done would like to not be the only one doing all of these if anyone else is willing. Heart (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Heart (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Heart (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY All swapped and checked, happy to receive any comments - Dumelow (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 09:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 09:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 09:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 07:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 07:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 07:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 07:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tutorial?

I want to start volunteering here, but would love to have a tutorial. Like how to select things, and rotate things? Any advice? Heart (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away when you posted this but you've done the right thing by getting stuck in and you have done great so far. I think you've got the hang of most things I try to check:
  • Balance of time periods (I usually try to get at least one pre-1700 entry and one 1700-1900 in the blurbs and births/deaths).
  • Balance of regions (in the both the blurbs and births/deaths I try not to get more than 2 from a single continent actively seek out those from under-represented Africa, Asia and South America)
  • Actively seek out prominent anniversaries (particularly multiples of 25, 50, 100 years)
  • Avoid running the same articles year after year if possible (new articles can be found on the date pages, eg. 6 August, or on the FA/GA queries at Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries#Wikidata_queries)
  • Check the facts in the blurb are stated in the article and cited to a reliable source, if that is online check that the source supports the facts. This is more important that you might think in the birth/death articles, there is a tendancy for these dates to be stated only in the lead or infobox and uncited.
I am hoping to get back into editing here to help make some of the rotations but your work has allowed me to get back into content creation a bit too, so that's great. Don't worry about doing everything yourself and ask for help whenever you need it - Dumelow (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback please

I welcome any feedback on my August 11th rotation! Not many were eligible from the early years, so to compensate for that I made births/deaths heavy on earlier years. I keptm Enid Blyton as she was literally the only female thing I could find that was eligible. Also, I noticed that there were not that many deaths to pic from. Pictured DJ Kool Herc to celebrate the 50th anniversary. I made sure to get a mix of topics and nations, and checked that every fact was stated and cited in the article. Heart (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism

1057 – Pope Stephen IX became the first Belgian to be crowned as pope.
Belgium (and Belgian identity) certainly didn't exist in 1057. This claim isn't in the body of the article, only in the name of one solitary source, Un pape belge: histoire du pape Étienne X, unsurprisingly published by the Société belge de librairie in 1892. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed at WP:ERRORS for future reference. Heart (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HeartGlow30797: Ah well. The more you know. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Just a question. How come OTD (SA) is not a bigger thing? We have only two consistent editors, that being Dumelow and our copy-editor Ravenpuff. New entries are not looked for, neither is improving our already ineligible ones. When articles are newly created or expanded, editors don't actively look for it to be added here.

POTD is relatively planned until 2024, DYK has a promotion cycle, ITN has a relatively good posting process as well, with TFA having three consistent coordinators. OTD has new selections every day and featured on the main page, but doesn't get much recognition from content creators.

This is just my mind being curious. I still plan on helping out as my time will allow. Heart (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was basically a one-person show for years (Howcheng), and that person has gotten busier in their off-wiki life, I believe, and that meant that they no longer do it anymore. I was pitching in from time to time to fill the gap when they pulled back, but if you've now got two whole editors working here, you've doubled the effective workforce over what was OTD for almost a decade or more. And before you think that other areas are necessarily run by more people, for an almost equal amount of time, TFA was also a one-person job (User:Raul654), it was only 5-6 years ago that more people came in to help out. ITN is only busier because, by their nature, they attract fresh debate and are dealing with new articles or new topics. OTD isn't "let's get together and shout down people I don't agree with" like ITN is, which by its nature is far more fun. OTD is basically boring grunt work of checking articles and swapping out blurbs that have, for the most part, already been curated. I really appreciate the work you're doing, but OTD being basically a passion project for 1-2 people is kinda how it has always been for all of history. --Jayron32 18:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short vacation

Will not be able to edit this weekend, and would like to keep the two week buffer! Any help appreciated, Heart (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September checks

Thanks to stellar work from HeartGlow30797 and Vaticidalprophet we have got a decent way ahead so it's time to look at next month already - Dumelow (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vaticidalprophet 12:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 11:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 13:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 12:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 20:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 23:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 05:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 17:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that for the On this day... section for September 11, the September 11 attacks are listed as one of the anniversaries mentioned here. However, that day's featured picture is a photograph of the Tribute in Light 9/11 memorial from 2020. According to the guidelines per WP:OTD, it states, "To maintain a variety of topics on the Main Page, an event should not be chosen if it is also related to the subject of the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day." So there is a conflict for "On this day" since the Picture of the Day is about something related to 9/11. Shouldn't another event be featured in the OTD section since the day's featured picture is related to said tragedy? Birdienest81talk 09:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main-Page-topic-variety is complex (we recently had both TFA and DYK about Singaporean train stations, and famously once TFA and ITN about snooker world tournaments). Given 9/11 is a much Bigger Deal than either of those things, with full respect to those subjects, and in particular that very different 9/11-related-subjects are being referenced, I think it's...borderline? If it had been an image of 9/11 itself, that would be an issue. (To a substantial degree, this is only a problem because all of TFA, DYK, and POTD try to calendar-schedule despite OTD existing and those three processes having an excess of options that don't relate to calendar dates.) We held 9/11 at OTD for the 20th anniversary because TFA understandably-in-that-case calendar-scheduled, but POTD running a tribute image, not the event itself, on an anniversary of an event so massive that the reader on the Bourke Street tram would query its exclusion is hard to schedule around. Willing to discuss this in further depth (not right now, am going to bed), but I don't think this is the sort of thing that rule should be interpreted to mean. In particular, OTD being the 'smallest' of the Big Four combined with two of the other three (and both sub-Big-Fours) repeatedly trying to calendar-schedule risks the perverse outcome that such interpretations mean we can never schedule huge events, because the others can call dibs. Vaticidalprophet 09:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yet on the15th anniversary of 9/11, there was no blurb about the disaster on the OTD section, but there was a photo of the old Twin Towers as POTD. Also, going by your reasoning that a photo not of the tragedy itself featured as POTD while having the blurb, last year's main page on the 21st anniversary, did not mention the attacks on the On This Day section, but there was a photo of the Lower Manhattan skyline from 2017 as POTD while having 55 Wall Street as the TFA. So why was there no blurb for 9/11 on that day despite not having a photo that is off the attacks itself>
Anyways, I'm not going to throw a fit about it really. I do think the 2001 attacks should be mentioned at some point or another every 9/11 anniversary. I think it's too big of an event to not memorialize especially considering Wikipedia was founded eight months before the attacks. The only year since 2004 where the attacks were not mentioned on the main page was on the 13th anniversary. So that was strange. Also yes, I do believe in the Ignore All Rules on certain circumstances. And yes, I am fascinated by 9/11's heroism, for what it's worth. Birdienest81talk 18:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 04:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, awaiting thoughts on WT:OTD#Traditional dates before touching the 13th. Vaticidalprophet 00:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 03:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 03:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vaticidalprophet 03:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OTD comments

Thank you everyone for helping with OTD! I am going through all of the FAs and GAs to add more names to the birth/death lists so that you will have a larger, more diverse pool of options when rotating articles. Please remember to check the articles when rotating to ensure that the birth/death date is actually cited in the article (and there are even FAs and GAs that don't have these cited!) Please also remember to put the entries and images back into eligible when rotating entries off the template so they can be used in future years. Thanks everyone, and feel free to ping me if you have any questions! Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720, thank you for fixing issues, especially since someone has just been deleting perfectly fine eligible entries. Just a comment that some of the people that you have added do not meet Criteria 5a, not being listed on that day's page. I believe this is there to ensure that the date is actually cited as WP:DOY now require citations to be added along with new entries. Please let me know if this is not a criteria I should not be concerned with. Thanks again! Heart (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HeartGlow30797: I did not know about criteria 5a, thanks for bringing it to my attention! I have only been adding names to OTD when the birth/deathday is actually cited in the article. I figured that if a bio is an FA or GA, that person must be notable enough in their field to have enough information to include in the article and for a user to spend lots of time compiling the information. As I continue to add articles, I will apply a stricter notability requirement for their inclusion (especially when I get to popular topics like MilHist or sports). As OTD preppers, I think how notable or important the entries are should be a consideration for their inclusion on the template, along with geographic considerations, gender, significant anniversaries (100th birthday, 275th deathdate, etc.) and diversity of careers or things they are notable for. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input on standards here

Hi guys! With college starting back up again, I am not going to be able to devote my time to Wikipedia as much. Just a few things I have questions on:

  • Criteria 5a seems to be an issue that reoccurs, but does not get much attention. Criteria 5a states that birth/death dates listed on WP:OTD must also be on its corresponding WP:DOY page. If this does not seem to matter as much, should we remove that section from the criteria?
  • Does anyone read the notes listed on the talk page of each day. I have been doing them as Howcheng has been doing them for the past 12 years, but if noone uses them/reads them, I think we can remove this step from the procedure on this page. I've talked about maybe having a bot to do this step only as I read the notes when assembling things.

Any input is welcome! Again, I will help as much as I can here, especially to keep the 14 day gap we have. Heart (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion was that 5a was put in place to prevent a flood of bios to OTD from sectors of Wikipedia that tend to be more popular like sports, musicians and actors, and to prevent articles from appearing that are not interesting to our readers. I wouldn't mind relaxing this criteria to something like "OTD has a higher notability requirement for inclusion: entries should also be notable for an event or achievement in their topic area. It is suggested that the person would also be eligible for inclusion on their corresponding WP:DOY page."
It would be great if a bot could update the talk page. I like the talk page notes when they list how many appearances an entry has received so that an entry is not overused every year. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 5a matters at all, especially given the main OTD page also explicitly links to wikidata queries and other ways to find eligible articles.
I would like to participate in the discussion above, but find the unnamed commentary about me very uncomfortable in its tone. I'm happy to talk about my thoughts on eligibility and the talk pages. I don't personally find the talk pages useful, though I check them in case someone is making a nomination there. I mostly don't check the eligibility lists either, but the wikidata query for "event on date" has apparently died recently so I've been doing so more. I find the lists have very low representation of early dates and non-Western locations, which are the main things I'm looking for, and I also find a lot of ineligible stuff has had its problems fixed or vice versa. I also find the existing descriptions often need tweaking, so I write my own when I can, which similarly reduces the use for the eligibility category. (While it doesn't show on the main page, I feel uncomfortable with the fact the existing b/ds add "female" to the b/d comments for women with unisex or non-Anglophone names -- it feels very tokenizing.) Vaticidalprophet 14:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my comments gave the impression that I was talking about you: my comments were a generalisation of my observations (including of my own work) after various editors swapped the entries. I agree that OTD has reflected the bias of English Wikipedia: male, American and UK, recentism, and topics related to pop culture or warfare (amongst many others). What I want to avoid is using wikidata entries every year, causing editors to spend lots of time trying to find entries for OTD. After playing around with Wikidata, the results do not give a description of the person, which means that I have to go into the article to determine the person's notability, as opposed to OTD which has the nationality and occupation listed. Another problem with Wikidata is that it does not exclude someone who was already featured on OTD that year; b/d entries should only appear once a year. If Wikidata is used to pick the articles, editors should check the talk page to see when the article was last used.
After I go through FAs (and GAs) I want to go through the Wikidata to try to find entries that are usable but underrepresented. I also don't like the "female" designation and think we should just remove it: the person swapping the hooks should be checking the article anyways and they can figure out the person's gender then. Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional dates

Just getting a pulse check on a holdover that I don't think is necessary. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus is traditionally said to have been dedicated on 13 September 509 BC. It's currently marked "ineligible" as an "uncertain date". Considering that we can write OTD hooks for ourselves and are not restricted to copying and pasting old ones, should "date is traditional/uncertain" be a hard ruleout, even if the traditional status is made explicit in the hook ("509 BC: The traditional date for when the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the most important temple in Ancient Rome, was dedicated")? The hook on the dropdown doesn't make the uncertainty explicit, which would be problematic (to put it one way: if the dropdowns didn't exist, it'd surprise me if anyone wrote a hook from first principles that didn't mark it as uncertain). I'd prefer to be able to run contextualized-traditional-dates, because very little that predates the Julian and Gregorian calendars has an agreed-upon date down to the day and it's a significant problem otherwise for running far back in history. Vaticidalprophet 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vaticidalprophet, that's tricky. I'll tell you my first opinion upon reading this, but am open to a guidelines change if warranted. My thought process is that readers of the Main page expect definite events that happened x years ago, and that if they click on the article, they can find more information about it. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus say Traditionally the Temple was dedicated on September 13, the founding year of the Roman Republic, 509 BCE according to Livy. According to Dionysius, it was consecrated two years later in 507 BCE. This uncertainty leads to readers not getting a big impact of "this even definitely happened ten years ago." My inclination is to say that the procedure should remain the same, and that we should rule out any uncertain dates. This is just my first reaction, feel free to reply with your thoughts. Heart (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries&oldid=1173297493"