Talk:March 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Days of the year
WikiProject iconThis 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.

March 15: Ides of March

2015 Women's Boat Race
2015 Women's Boat Race

Albert of Schwarzburg (d. 1327) · Johan Vaaler (b. 1866) · Lauren Ebsary (b. 1983)

More anniversaries:


Julius Caesar?[edit]

Shouldn't Caesar go under March 14? Mattman00000 04:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why March 14? He was assassinated on the Ides of March, March 15. -- Borameer 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently if you convert the calendar they used then to the calendar we use now the March 15 of 44 BC becomes March 14, but he died on the ides of March (March 15) so I don’t see why it should be changed.--ChesterMarcol 16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

What about under Holidays and observances? It doesn't happen that often, and should be noted somehow on the page. I would think this would be a natural place for it. Chris (クリス) (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only a one time occurrence, so it wouldn't really go under holidays either. It really only affects those religious folks who pay attention to the events of holy week. The world will still celebrate St. Patrick's Day on March 17. Whether the church says it is on March 15 this year or not, it is on March 17 - and it is celebrated as a secular observance more than a religious one. In ten years no one will care that this happened. Maybe it should just go on the St. Patrick's Day article? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology event[edit]

Please establish the notability of the Scientology protest here before adding it to the article. Like the event that took place on February 10, this second protest did not have any impact on anything. It was a low-turnout event that was nothing more than an unsuccessful attempt at disruption. Just because it was covered in some of the mainstream media does not indicate long term global notability of the event. Unless this event sparks major changes in Scientology, it will not rise to the level of global notability required for inclusion. This was not a social milestone or a mass movement for change. All cited sources that I've seen suggest a lower turnout for this event compared with the first one and that indicates that the novelty of the idea is wearing thin. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

wait what.... . This protest happened in hundreds of cities across the globe. Also you state that it was'nt a "mass movement for change"! That is all this is a global protest for change in the church. With that all I have to say is see you at the next protest.

-Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous520 (talkcontribs) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It may have happened in many cities (no evidence of hundreds of cities that I've seen) but interest is certainly waning and it has had no real impact on the church. With a month's notice, I could get 50 people in 20 cities to gather and protest the color blue. This is not notable. A few people who are not willing to admit who they are (anonymous) won't be taken seriously by anyone. If the church is forced to make a change in policy as a direct result of this, then it might be notable. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

World Contact Day?[edit]

Why do people keep trying to include this? It doesn't link to a Wikipedia page and even if it did I really don't think that an informal psychic experiment proposed in a UFO magazine even approaches relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartDarren (talkcontribs) 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted the observance actually. --Rochelimit (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Not True[edit]

"1776 – South Carolina became the first of Great Britain's North American colonies to declare its independence." - New Hampshire declared independence in January 1776 --AsukaSeagull (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That fact doesn't appear to be sourced in either article. Therefore it must be removed altogether until a source is provided in the target article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages[edit]

The following births & deaths were deleted on 10 December by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with an edit summary that they are “insufficiently globally notable”. An exact criteria is needed for who should be considered “sufficiently globally notable” and thus, worthy of being mentioned on these pages. Otherwise, we are likely to continue having edit wars.

Births
Deaths

Other editors’ opinions are needed to help reach some sort of consensus. Thank you, -- -- -- 21:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It strikes me that if someone's biog has passed the necessary criteria for them to have a wiki page, surely the default is they are notable? I am pretty new to editing though, so I may be missing some additional points about what counts as notable. Moira Paul (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thats what I think too. If no one will express opposition, I will re-add all of these names to the list. -- -- -- 21:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done. -- -- -- 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
2 more deaths, deleted 15/Mar/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "rv non-notable entries"
More births, deleted 19/Mar/16 by Redsky89 (talk · contribs) without explanation
Deaths deleted 19/Mar/16 by Redsky89 (talk · contribs) without explanation
Births deleted 19/Mar/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with an edit summary that they are “insufficiently universally notable”

-- -- -- 20:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Births deleted 29/Jun/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with an edit summary that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Deaths
Birth deleted 19/Jul/16 by Bmcln1 (talk · contribs) without explanation
Births deleted 21/Aug/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Births deleted 25/Aug/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Births deleted 23/Oct/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Deaths
Birth deleted 3/Dec/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Births deleted 10/Dec/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Birth deleted 27/Dec/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Deaths
Births deleted 30/Dec/16 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Death
Births deleted 1/Aug/17 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) with the explanation that they are “insufficiently universally notable”
Deaths
Death deleted 5/Oct/18 by Yamla (talk · contribs) without explanation
You are welcome to reintroduce this if you are sure it was correct. It was added here by a persistent vandal known for introducing unsourced and often deliberately fake information to pages, over the course of many months. That particular IP address has been blocked more recently by another admin for continued vandalism. So, if you reintroduce it, please note that you'll be taking responsibility for the accuracy. This isn't a passive-aggressive threat at all. If you think it's appropriate to reintroduce, I have absolutely no objection to you doing so. --Yamla (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for responding. -- -- -- 21:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done. -- -- -- 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how to report, but will.i.am is listed twice in 1975 births. I'm not fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4880:47A0:7D4E:4132:5580:609C (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Is he still listed twice? i only found one. -- -- -- 21:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)