Talk:April 11

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.

April 11

Nevill Ground's pavilion after the 1913 arson
Nevill Ground's pavilion after the 1913 arson
More anniversaries:

Should we mention this?[edit]

Computer identifies the most boring day in history - April 11, 1954 has been declared to be the most boring day in history. Of course this is total puff-piece nonsense news and research, but still it is cute. Rather than inserting it into the article directly, I thought I'd just post it here for thoughtful people to reflect upon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is cute, but yes, total puff-piece nonsense. It also isn't an event in any sense of the word, nor is it supported by any wikipedia article I can find. From WP:DAYS#Style: References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles. However, references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles and not external links. If a supporting internal link doesn't exist that is a very strong indicator that the event in question is not notable. In this case it isn't even an "Event" at all though, so a link still wouldn't save it. Boring and eventful certainly aren't synonyms. Winston365 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have updated True Knowledge.[1] This has received some attention: "April 11" 1954 "most boring day". I saw it in Denmark without searching for it. It's obviously subjective so if we mention it here then I think the origin should be stated in the article text. Maybe:
It's currently in 1954 but there have been several reverts. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As the computor used data for more than 300 million events I would not call it subjective. The day appears to be notable for not being notable. Wayne (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The concept of being notable for not being notable seems an oxymoron to me. At least in the sense of notability implied by the guidelines at WP:DOY. The notion of an "event" implies something happened, and notability implies the event had some impact. This is being touted explicitly as a day that had very little impact, and one where relatively little happened. If something notable happened on this day it should be listed. If nothing notable happened then it should be treated like every other non-notable day and not be listed on these pages. I still don't see how this qualifies as an event, as opposed to just a label applied to a day. One day might be the most notable day in history, but that doesn't mean it should be listed because of that. List the notable events on that day and be done with it. Even if True Knowledge thinks this is a notable date, the events section exists to list notable events, not notable dates. Winston365 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, those are all good points, but I personally think that it would be OK to not be so strict in this case. I don't really have a good counterargument, it's just my personal opinion that it would be fun to include it. However, I would sat that surely a non-event could be notable (e.g., "The only day in the 20th Century with no recorded rainfall at any location on Earth" would be notable; if a given day had no births or deaths, that would highly notable; etc.). But the confluence of non-events on this day may not measure up to notability, and I don't know if the True Knowledge data and algorithms really produced a reliable result (and this is probably unascertainable), and we only have the guy's word for it that he didn't just pull it out of his hat, I guess. If we do include it, I would suggest not using the word "boring" and use something like this wording: "Selected as the most objectively uneventful day of the 20th Century by True Knowledge founder William Tunstall-Pedoe." Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that using the word uneventful in a section titled Events improves the situation, other than to highlight that this entry is an exception to the usual rules. Winston365 (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The reader has no idea what this means or how the designation was arrived at since there's no further info in the wikilinked articles. Add it back in when there's an article to show context. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

True Knowledge#Knowledge accumulation and verification says: "In November 2010, True Knowledge used some 300 million facts to calculate that Sunday April 11, 1954 was the most boring day since 1900". There are two inline references where the interested reader can find additional info. I don't think the article needs more. A Google search shows this has received lots of attention: "April 11 1954" "boring day". It also has an entry at 1954#April. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Re-added --NeilN talk to me 03:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a useless bit of trivia and it should be excluded. This is not an event, not notable in the long term. The assertion that "talk page is mostly in favor" seems to be a bit of a stretch. The opening statement above says it all "total puff-piece nonsense news and research". -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this piece of info should definitely be included because of it being a characteristic of this day and this info couldn't be put in any other location in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fltyingpig (talkcontribs)