Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 14 as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 13 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

"More citations needed" template?

Per #Exemption_from_WP:V above, and because I have been made aware of the situation on my talk page, I would suggest creating a template, based loosely on {{More citations needed}}, to explain the new situation. This template should be placed above all Days-of-the-year articles, or at least above sections about living persons, until references have been added to all the statements. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Add references to your birthday" event

Referring to #Exemption_from_WP:V above, how about creating an event to get this problem fixed? Let's ask project members and interested people to add references to the article about their birthday. Ideally, someone born (or who has started editing on) January 1 would add all the required references to the "January 1" list. In most cases, these are already given in the linked article, can quickly be verified for reliability and then copied to the list. In a few cases, there will be unverified statements, and these should be removed from the linked article and the list. Whenever this happens, we also prove that it was a good idea to require references for the list entries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I sometimes add references to the current day but it feels like drops in the ocean. Ping me if this ends up happening. Kees08 (Talk) 00:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. Toddst1 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've completed the cleanup of mine. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work Toddst1. I am working on July 21 (when we first walked on the Moon, UTC time). I was planning on going through and adding citations to all that I could, but should I cleanup/shorten the list first? I saw your date is significantly shorter than the July 21 list. Kees08 (Talk) 19:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I know Deb and I have been I walking through each item one at a time and either inserting a reference from the linked article that supported the date/year or removing entries where no such reference was in the linked article. I also removed many unsupported DOBs from the linked articles per WP:BLP/WP:DOB. YMMV.

I'm slowly working on my wife's birthday. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Roger, sounds good. I thought I saw something about a notability minimum requirement, is that still a thing? Kees08 (Talk) 22:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi from a new project member.

I have been on Wikipedia since 2006, but I'm not much of a joiner. I enjoy looking at today's DOY and then cruising around to interesting articles. I have little or no interest in the births and deaths, but I visit many of the "events" articles. I have always been truly annoyed by "event" listings that I think are too long. Recently, I unilaterally decided to start taking action, and I have been trimming overlong event entries, and in the few cases that the event was not supported by the linked article, I delete it. I then realized that maybe I should find out if my actions are supported by guidelines, and I stumbled upon this project.

I basically look at all entries that are long enough to wrap to a second line on a reasonably-sized desktop page, and then trim out what I consider to be excessive detail. I try fairly hard to leave enough information to let a casual reader know whether or not the event is of interest to the reader, so a few entries are still a bit long after trimming.

So, here's the question: Am I being too aggressive in my trimming? -Arch dude (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arch dude. I'm fairly new to editing, and also brand new to the project. So I can't answer your question in terms of what the project's guidelines and other members would say. I too am interested in the "Events" section, but from the perspective of adding events. I've noticed over time that the "events" lists often contain few - or no - achievements by women. I'm making sure each line I add is very brief, and the wikipages I'm linking to support the inclusion. I'm hoping we are not going to cancel each other out in our edits, and would appreciate others' views on the best approaches for both of us. Moira Paul (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Moira Paul: Welcome and thanks for helping. No, we won't cancel out at all. I very rarely remove an "event" entry, I just shorten them. I will only remove an entry when there is no linked article or when the linked article does not mention the event. Since your approach will add events that meet my (our) inclusion criteria, I'm happy to see them. Since you are willing to keep them brief, it's unlikely I will trim them. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? It seems to me that your self-imposed task of adding events is an ideal task for a new editor, and I hope you stay with it, but you may wish to also join that project. -Arch dude (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Arch dude:. Thanks! I'm already part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red but that project always looks useful. Moira Paul (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Moira. WIR is interested in increasing the number of women here. I found your comment because I just added the births of Edith New and Mary Blathwayt to 1 Feb and 17? of March. Some tweet their additions at #wikiwomeninred. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Standard headings for 'in recent years' sub-pages?

Hi. I was planning to add something to the '2018' subpage for January 14 (ie Portal:Current events/2018 January 14). There wasn't a heading it would have fitted under, so I was wondering if there is a list we should be referring to so we make sure we are being consistent? If not, should there be? Moira Paul (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Moira Paul: There is a list of headings, which can be found at the top of Portal talk:Current events. (But quite possibly nowhere else, which is a little weird as it should really be centralized somewhere more "official".) Anyway, the message box on that talk page contains the following:

-- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent problems

There has recently been a spate of anon IPs adding unreferenced entries to the DOTY articles, and I have protected some of the most popular pages, i.e. the ones around the current date, for a period so that anons can't edit. I have just blocked User:Unknown artist for repeatedly doing the same, despite several warnings on his talk page and a block log as long as my arm. Deb (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome work in improving the DOTY articles and their veracity

For the record, @Deb:'s work on this project has been nothing short of awesome. I've awarded her a Spotlight User_talk:Deb#The_Defender_of_the_Wiki_Barnstar. Please keep up the awesome work!! Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Direct references required to add dates of birth & death now?

I was just reverted for an update to May 17 adding year of death for Herman Wouk, who passed today (17 May 2019) at age 103. This is in the subject's article with proper reference to his death date. I have been informed we need the reference in the date page. I do not understand this requirement and as I do not usually edit Dates pages I was not aware. This is daft. Every entry in a date page must have a link to an article in the English Wikipedia (they all do). The corresponding article takes care of asserting notability and it must have a reference for dates of birth and death to be accepted. Is this for real? Almost none of the current entries for May 17 have a reference in that page and I can guarantee this goes for every day and every year page without looking much for it. Shouldn't we then delete all entries that are not referenced? This is a navigation page, informative, and pointing to the corresponding articles, which must be properly referenced. Who came up with this? Am I upset about this? You bet. Can someone please explain the reasoning? And let me know who will start removing all "unreferenced" entries so we start from scratch. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that these pages are loaded with errors as well as links to articles that do not have reliable sources to back the information up. Several of us have been working on adding direct references for existing entries and removing entries that can't be supported, but it's a ton of work. In fact, it's one of @Deb:'s superpowers. New additions without direct sources are pretty much reverted on sight. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Alexf. The guidelines for DOTY were amended in July 2018, by consensus, to make this specific. I didn't agree with the change, but since working on it, I've realised just how many of the entries were either on the wrong date or not supported by any reference at all. Deb (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This change means that moving wrongly-dated things to their right date becomes more cumbersome. I do appreciate that someone walks that extra mile, but I cannot be bothered to help with it. --Palnatoke (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Me neither. This requirement forcing editors to reference new entries or modifications on an index page is one of the stupidest Wikipedia policies in existence. Okay, I assume it was arrived at by consensus - at least I hope it was - but the idea of Wikipedia consensus is, itself, often found wanting. Regardless, the policy is sure as hell bound to drive away potential new editors, as they see their work "reverted on site". It's like going back to school! "Now you know you must reference entries on this index page, so go away and be a good little boy and do it like we told you (we've reverted your change, just to teach you a lesson)". Instead of "reverting on site", the busybodies who concern themselves with this would be far better employed putting the references in themselves, which more often than not, would merely involve copying what's already in the source article. 31.52.162.143 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Want to add new event on 15th of June... But the problem is...

Hi on June 15th I want to add the foundation of the UEFA because that day UEFA come to life so the problem is that I want to add it but if I do so I might get into trouble because if a want to reference it, I cannot do it because I'm a mess on this thing of Wikipedia codes and I have been warned several times because of my problem of referencing things I add into the Wikipedia... So my proposal is that I will add it myself and someone who is more skilled than me add the reference. Waiting some kind people who can understand me without threating me like a dumb... Thanks in advance!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeutscherFeuer (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@DeutscherFeuer: Hello! Thank you for your willingness to help the Wikiproject. If you want to add the entry regarding the UEFA, then I am happy to do it for you, so long as you find a link to somewhere that provides proof about the event. If you can't find a reliable source, then unfortunately, nothing can be done to the page. If you can find a suitable link you can reply on this page or at my talk page. If you have anymore questions please ask me here or at the help desk. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:DOYCITE

How is the above guideline intended to be implemented? Now that these articles are no longer exempt from WP:V, are we to go around deleting practically every article maintained by this WikiProject as almost none of them have any references? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable sorry for the delay. No, this is not the case. All articles that were added before the 'no longer exempt from WP:V' discussion to DOTY pages can stay, just new entries with a WP:RS should be deleted. The few WikiProject members still participating are gradually trying to add sources to each entry. You can see the effort at January 1, January 2, May 11 and January 3. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

​Perhaps then, the text of the guideline should be changed to read: Any material added after 16 October 2017 lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of clean-up being done, where unsupported entries are being slowly culled out. See discussion above. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition of South Korean boy band debuts

Can I add these: Template:BTS(band) Template:Seventeen (South Korean band) Thanks

FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia what are you trying to ask? I can direct you to the Teahouse or the Help Desk to ask questions.

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: , but do not sign in articles. Willbb234 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to edit 2013 and 2015 by adding their debut dates. Can I? FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)