Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Days of the year and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DOY inclusion discussion - project members input requested

See Talk:June_13#Dodger infield of Garvey, Lopes, Russell and Cey Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DOY Questions and Suggestions

I have been directed here by @Kiwipete so that my comments reach a larger audience. With that said, hello. My name is Keir and I have been adding professional tennis players to the Days of the Year births sections. In the course of doing so I noticed a few things:

Firstly, since the style insists upon the use of – and not –, is there a way to produce the former in Visual editing that does not include copying it from another entry? Anyone that knows how please drop me a reply here or on my talk page.

Secondly, it was brought to my attention that multiple instances of persons born on the same year should be ordered alphabetically by surname. This is mentioned in some but only a few of the Days of the Year entries between the end of the Births list and the beginning of the Deaths list. The vast majority of entries omit either the necessity to order alphabetically by surname, or that these entries need to be ordered alphabetically at all. May I suggest signing off on a single message that contains all the relevant information and copying this into the entry for every single article so as to avoid any confusion.

Further to the topic of surname alphabetisation, I seek some clarity regarding certain specific scenarios:

1. What's the rule when two persons born on the same day of the same year with the same surname (such as twins) are both notable professionals? I encountered this with Karolína Plíšková and her twin sister Kristýna Plíšková. Here I elected to order by first name between the two players.

2. What's the rule when dealing with persons with names from other languages and cultures? I noticed that Chinese professional tennis players are known professionally as, for example, Qinwen Zheng when their Wikipedia entry observes the order Zheng Qinwen. What would users advise is followed in Days of the Year Births entries regarding which order is preferred? The same question is extended to names from Spanish and other cultures. Is there any scenario in which what's considered a surname, here used for the purpose of alphabetisation, becomes disputed?

3. Next, I had a question about persons such as internet celebrities and others who go by a mononym. How is this to be treated in surname alphabetisation? Should we look for actual surname and order that within the list? Does it matter if the mononym is their first or last name itself or of pseudonymous origin?

4. I noticed also that some entries make reference to a specific achievement, worded such as 'Brazilian footballer and Olympic medallist', but the vast majority do not even when the person concerned has multiple noteworthy achievements. What is the rule here? Should these be removed when noticed? If they are allowed, should citations make explicit reference to this achievement? Is there a calibre of achievement worthy of note such as 'Academy Award winner', 'Olympic medallist', 'Nobel Prize winner' etc. etc., and if so, where is the line?

Finally, I just wanted to note that in every instance of a female professional tennis player that I have personally added, I have linked their Women's Tennis Association profile. This is a minor issue for some younger players as the website is unfortunately behind on the inclusion of birthdays. In these instances, I have also linked another reference such as Eurosport, ESPN, Wimbledon etc. that makes explicit reference to their date of birth. I plan on keeping these WTA profile references in place as they should, in good time, come to show their exact date of birth. If this is a problem, please let me know.

Thank you for your time reading this. I will continue to add professional tennis players, past and present, with Wikipedia entries and of course adequate reference to their date of birth and existence in a professional and noteworthy capacity.

Kxcii (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links - Today in Canada history

These links seem to be dead permanently. At least, I can no longer access them and the link on December 29 has been marked as permanently dead. We should consider if these should be kept or removed; I suggest the latter. Also, does anyone have an efficient way to remove all 366 of them? Ciridae (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January done. Kiwipete (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And February. Kiwipete (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated all DOY articles now. In the process, I noticed that the New York Times links were no longer working. I found that the NYT has archived all of these articles, so I updated the {{NYT}} template with the new URL. If anyone notices any problems, please drop a line. Kiwipete (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are links to other language Wikipedias acceptable?

The DOY Project page states: "All events, births, deaths, and holidays should be linked to existing Wikipedia articles ..." Does that mean English Wikipedia articles? I've been removing entries with links to other language Wikipedias, for example, this one. Am I correct? —Bruce1ee ^talk 15:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bruce, I think you're correct. I notice that Mars Wawrzyn asked you as well on your talk page, but they haven't responded, so presumably they accept your rationale that there needs to be an English wiki article. Kiwipete (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If there is consensus on this, then perhaps the word "English" needs to be added to that sentence on the Project page. —Bruce1ee ^talk 21:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kiwipete (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of good/reliable sources

I think it would be a good idea to have a section on the main project page with a list of good and reliable sources that editors can use and quickly add to DOY articles. These can be especially good for birth and death dates, and holidays.

We can have subsections based on whether the source is free/open, free subscription, paid subscription or available through Wikipedia Library.

Thoughts? Ciridae (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ciridae, first of all, a big thanks to you for all the citations you've been adding. I think this is a good idea, but are you suggesting something other than what already exists at WP:RSPSOURCES? Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwipete: thanks for your kind words. And yes, something that would be specifically useful to DOY project editors. Good and reliable sources for biographies and obituaries which would have birth and death dates (I don't think we can help with Events much by using this). I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from using other sources so a disclaimer might also be required: that these are suggestions, not requirements. Ciridae (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Lab discussion of interest to this Wikiproject

See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Workshopping some guidance for content of Wikipedia articles about years/dates. --Jayron 32 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject does follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, so I will add the QUALITY_CRITERIA parameter to the WP banner template as you say.

We currently don't display the quality assessment using the Talk page WP banner. Since the only quality assessment we do is to determine that an article is up to our "citation standards" or not, I'm not sure how to implement that in the WP banner. We're currently showing that in the WikiProject's main page. Ciridae (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about entries missing inline citations.

Should we add citation needed tags to existing entries missing inline citations? Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be thousands of entries. I don't think it's necessary. Kiwipete (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I wish pending changes reviewers could enforce WP:DOYCITE instead of being told to find and add the citations and not to revert the pending edits adding an entry without an inline citation. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Who is telling whom? I for one try to enforce WP:DOYCITE as much as possible. Kiwipete (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive tried reverting pending edits that added entries without inline citations before. A ip user kept adding them without the inline citations and got warned 4 times and then I eventually reported them. The report was dismissed by an admin and the admin literally reasoned that since the majority of the entries on the article didn't have inline citations that the ip user's entry shouldn't have to have them. The admin said that the pending changes reviewer should do the inline citations and accept the entry instead of reverting the entry. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Active Peer Review notification

There is an ongoing peer review for the DOY article February 8. I've been working on the article for a bit now and was hoping for additional input before I nominate it for Featured List status. Please feel free to directly edit the article or post comments/suggestions regarding it on the peer review talk page. Thanks! Best, Dan the Animator 23:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change all 365 articles to the DMY date format

Why are the articles named e.g. October 1 and not 1 October? The DMY format is more logical and used internationally. I suggest changing the date format for all 365 articles from MDY (May 7, 1983) to DMY (7 May 1983). See map below: Date format by country. Map showing which countries primarily use which endian date format. Colors for base formats CMY, mixing using CMYK color model.

DMY – Day/Month/Year – Little-endian

MDY – Month/Day/Year – Middle-endian

YMD – Year/Month/Day – Big-endian (used internationally as ISO 8601)

DMY + MDY

DMY + YMD

MDY + YMD

DMY + MDY + YMD

Formatting for abbreviations on DOY articles

In one of the comments I've gotten so far during the peer review for the February 8 article, Pamzeis suggested that I put in the {{abbr}} template where ever there are abbreviations in the article, which is primarily in the birth/death section lists of DOY articles, which use "b." and "d." in place of "birth" and "death," respectively. I switched out the text for the template but the use of the template apparently isn't aligned with the DOY-project consensus and Kiwipete recommended I open a discussion regarding it. Personally either way works for me and the only reason I made the switch was because of the peer review but I still would like to see other editors' opinions on this and whether it might be better for the DOY articles to use the template. I also don't want this issue to hold up the article's FL nomination when it comes around. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding DOY article leads

Yesterday I started a Featured List nomination for the article February 8 given how much work I've put into improving it and the personal significance the day has to me. So far, of the two comments I've gotten on the nom, both have directly pointed to the need to expand the lead. Currently DOY articles, as per the wikiproject template, have one-sentence standardized leads, which is inconsistent with WP:FLCR and MOS' guidelines (see MOS:LEADLENGTH). Given the current DOY wikiproject guidelines explicitly state the need to achieve consensus here before making any changes that differ with the template, I won't be able to successfully finish the FL nom until this discussion reaches some sort of a decision. I'll ping involved/potentially interested editors to increase participation but definitely post links to this discussion anywhere where it could help. Also, besides changing the guidelines, feel free to give suggestions on how the lead should be expanded as well (personally, I think having a sort of summary that mentions the most notable events, births/deaths, and holidays in a way similar to the year articles (GA example) would make the most sense). Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb, Redsky89, Grnrchst, Juliancolton, Nevermore27, Holly Cheng, New World Man, Rlink2, Adamfinmo, Aerin17, Arch dude, Ciridae, Codrinb, History DMZ, JackofOz, Jip Orlando, Jishiboka1, Kiwipete, McMarcoP, Mltg404, Moira Paul, Mufka, Natalie Bueno Vasquez, Shadow311, Suonii180, Toddst1, Wham2001, Willbb234, Wisdom Walk, and Zzyzx11: Pinging involved and potentially interested editors. Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm in favour of that. I don't see what else you could say about a specific date unless you want to list holidays/saint's days that always take place on that particular date. Listing events would be pointless as the date itself is not normally significant or related to the event, except in cases where something always takes place on that particular holiday, e.g. a rebellion or riot that regularly takes place on, e.g., St Valentine's Day. Deb (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tend to agree. While we appreciate your hard work on Feb 8, I'm not in favor either. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 8 looks to be in excellent shape – thank-you for all your work on the article! I am not in principle opposed to having longer leads for DoY articles (though I'm largely uninvolved in the Wikiproject at the moment, so my opinion might not carry much weight). However I find it very hard to see how you could make such a lead work. The events in year articles are temporally connected together so that one can synthesize a story for the lead: DoY articles are mostly arbitrary sets of events that happened to occur on the same day. To take examples from the article, how would one decide whether e.g. the start of the Russo-Japanese war was more or less significant than the Ba'ath party coming to power in Iraq or the founding of the Boy Scouts? I suggest that a way forward might be to mock up a lead for February 8 on this talk page and see what people think – but I can't see how you would do it without making an almost entirely arbitrary set of choices of what to include. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comments on the FLN page, I opened an RfC to discuss this question. Here's the link to the open RfC on handling the lead issue for these articles. Feel free to add your thoughts/comments/etc. to that page. Thanks! Dan the Animator 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

I've raised an issue about edits to December 25 here. If anyone is able to have a look and reply, please do so there. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about people with uncertain dates of birth or death?

Hello, I have been editing quite a few articles of days and I have a question; what is a correct entry of a person's birth or death if the exact year is unknown? I have seen a few entries that format it as the following example:

• 123 – John Doe, fake person (b. c. 12)

Most of the time, I see entries of people with uncertain births or deaths simply left blank. If anyone could help answer me, I would greatly appreciate it. All the best, Danny Magic (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it out. Toddst1 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Famous birthdays mirrors

There is an editor that is littering these articles with entries supported only by obvious WP:MIRROR articles from UPI and AP with titles like "Today's Famous Birthdays." Please keep an eye out and revert/remove this garbage on sight. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @Toddst1, but to back up your argument, could you get these sources listed at WP:MIRROR? Kiwipete (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Founding of Atari not listed on the June 27th wiki Page

On the June 27th Wiki page there is not an entry for the founding of the Atari company. I think it should be on there but I'm not sure if that counts as a "notable event". Josiah A. Freeman (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Atari, this is just a brand name, not an actual entity. So if there is/can be no article specifically about its founding, it can't be listed there. Kiwipete (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing events by pre-1600 and later

It looks like every day article, e.g. March 29, divides events, births and deaths into three timeframes: Pre-1600, 1601–1900 and 1901–present. Why is that and was there some decision on such arbitrary division? Brandmeister^talk 11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template#Subsections. Suonii180 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate birthdays

I wrote a script to scan all the days of the year pages and to see which people have duplicate names. Obviously this script isn't perfect (e.g. Old Style being listed under people), and I originally wrote it to point out mistakes in individual pages. However, it does makes me curious as to how the project goes about the following:

How are old and new style dates handled in the project? Should it be listed under one date, or both? If both old and new style dates are included, how should it be indicated per the format?
Should two people with a shared page (e.g. the Duffer brothers) count as being independently notable? Would them being born on the same day affect whether or not they should? As per WP:DOY, "being part of a group with an article or having the page that bears one's name redirected to a different article does not qualify as having one's own article".

Here is the output of said script:

   Isaac Newton - January 4, 1643 (Old Style and New Style dates|NS), December 25, 1642 (Julian calendar|OS)
   Denny Barry - January 7, 1905, July 15, 1883
   Yoon Hae-young - January 19, 1972, May 1, 1972
   Uto Ughi - January 21, 1944, January 22, 1944
   Darren Helm - January 21, 1987, January 21, 1987
   Thomas Paine - January 29, 1737, February 9, 1737
   Yoon Bo-ra - January 30, 1989, December 30, 1989
   Bo Hopkins - February 2, 1938, February 2, 1942
   Michele Greene - February 3, 1962, February 13, 1962
   João de Castro - February 7, 1500, February 27, 1500
   Freddie Blassie - February 8, 1918, February 18, 1918
   Alejandro Ávila - February 9, 1964, November 24, 1973
   Kathleen Beller - February 10, 1956, February 19, 1956
   Felice and Boudleaux Bryant - February 13, 1920, August 7, 1925
   Ken Wahl - February 14, 1957, October 31, 1954
   Duffer brothers - February 15, 1984, February 15, 1984
   Tom Crean (explorer) - February 16, 1877, July 20, 1877
   Louis-Alexandre Berthier - February 20, 1753, November 20, 1753
   Zenaida Manfugás - February 22, 1922, February 22, 1932
   James and Oliver Phelps - February 25, 1986, February 25, 1986
   Syreeta Wright - February 28, 1946, August 3, 1946
   Leo and Diane Dillon - March 2, 1933, March 13, 1933
   Nathalie Kelley - March 3, 1984, October 5, 1984
   Josh Bowman - March 4, 1984, March 4, 1988
   Princess Clémentine of Orléans - March 6, 1817, June 3, 1817
   Kate Bornstein - March 15, 1948, May 15, 1948
   Frances Conroy - March 15, 1953, November 13, 1953
   Sophia Dorothea of Hanover - March 16, 1687, March 26, 1687
   Johann Sebastian Bach - March 21, 1685, March 31, 1685
   Dimitrie Cuclin - March 24, 1885, April 5, 1885
   Xenophon Zolotas - March 26, 1904, April 26, 1904
   Maimonides - March 30, 1135, April 6, 1135
   Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin - April 1, 1755, April 2, 1755
   Menachem Mendel Schneerson - April 2, 1902, April 5, 1902
   Bernhard Gregory - April 10, 1879, April 22, 1879
   Helenio Herrera - April 10, 1910, April 17, 1910
   Valeriy Brumel - April 14, 1942, May 14, 1942
   Ryan Mathews (American football) - May 1, 1987, October 10, 1987
   Maryam Mirzakhani - May 3, 1977, May 12, 1977
   Beryl Burton - May 5, 1937, May 12, 1937
   Symon Petliura - May 10, 1879, May 22, 1879
   Jiddu Krishnamurti - May 11, 1895, May 12, 1895
   Louis de Buade de Frontenac - May 12, 1622, May 22, 1622
   Old Style and New Style dates - May 18, 1692, May 21, 1688
   Robert Richard Torrens - May 31, 1812, July 1, 1814
   Mas Oyama - June 4, 1923, July 27, 1923
   Stefan Postma - June 10, 1976, October 6, 1976
   Gavin Hill - June 11, 1965, December 11, 1965
   Zygmunt Janiszewski - June 12, 1888, July 12, 1888
   Manuel González Flores - June 17, 1833, June 18, 1833
   Ivonne Coll - June 18, 1947, November 4, 1947
   Old Style - June 20, 1642, June 20, 1647, June 20, 1723, June 21, 1639, June 21, 1676, June 21, 1881
   Billy and Bobby Mauch - July 6, 1921, July 6, 1921
   Kārlis Skrastiņš - July 7, 1973, July 9, 1974
   Amalia Mendoza - July 10, 1923, July 23, 1923
   Han Yong-un - July 12, 1879, August 29, 1879
   Johann Bernoulli - July 27, 1667, August 6, 1667
   Emily Kinney - August 15, 1984, August 15, 1985
   Aimé Bonpland - August 22, 1773, August 29, 1773
   Chuck Brown - August 22, 1936, August 23, 1936
   Martin Erat - August 28, 1981, August 29, 1981
   Pope Gregory XVI - September 8, 1765, September 18, 1765
   The Batten Twins - September 8, 1958, September 8, 1958
   Inez and Charlie Foxx - September 9, 1942, October 23, 1939
   Miroslav Dvořák (ice hockey) - September 11, 1951, October 11, 1951
   Tegan and Sara - September 19, 1980, September 19, 1980
   Bhagat Singh - September 27, 1907, September 28, 1907
   Diosdado Macapagal - September 28, 1910, September 29, 1910
   Frank Stagg (Irish republican) - October 4, 1941, October 5, 1941
   Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) - October 5, 1949, October 8, 1949
   Jeremy Davies - October 8, 1969, October 28, 1969
   Giambattista Marino - October 14, 1569, October 18, 1569
   Eric Benét - October 15, 1967, October 15, 1970
   Christopher Wren - October 20, 1632, October 30, 1632
   Sarah Bernhardt - October 22, 1844, October 23, 1844
   Kray twins - October 24, 1933, October 24, 1933
   Velimir Khlebnikov - October 28, 1885, November 9, 1885
   Laura Bassi - October 29, 1711, October 31, 1711
   Denny Doherty - November 19, 1941, November 29, 1940
   Pierre Charles Le Monnier - November 20, 1715, November 23, 1715
   Paulo Figueiredo - November 20, 1972, November 28, 1972
   Mona Hanna-Attisha - November 24, 1976, December 9, 1976
   Garcelle Beauvais - November 26, 1966, November 28, 1966
   Hasan al-Askari - December 4, 846, December 6, 846
   George Whitefield - December 16, 1714, December 27, 1714
   George Newbern - December 30, 1963, December 30, 1964
   Ricky Whittle - December 31, 1979, December 31, 1981

2604:3D08:4F7A:BA30:0:0:0:5F48 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these entries should be removed from the DOY pages unless supported by WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on If DOY articles should have their assessment set to list-class.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

DOY article assessments will be set to list class. Shadow311 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should all the Days of the Year articles have their article assessments set to list-class?  If its agreed on, I can go through and set the assessments. Shadow311 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(summoned by the bot) My instinct is yes – they're more like lists than they are like normal articles. But is there any context to this RfC? Is it related to the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#RfC on the leads of DOY articles and their FL eligibility? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger No, I've just been bothered seeing unassessed on them and wanted to know if everyone else would be fine if I set their assessments to list-class. Shadow311 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The proposal sounds reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the list assessment, it's essentially what they are. Suonii180 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems right. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Mx. Granger, Suonii180, and HenryMP02: I have now gotten the articles set to list class. One or two May be set to class B since I didn't want to change the assessment if it was set to class b or higher.Shadow311 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on this, @Shadow311. You may want to have a look at a subsequent edit done to Talk:February 25. I can't tell if this makes any difference to your changes. Kiwipete (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of entries on DOY articles

I've opened a discussion with @Eddie Scarpa on the talk page for May 13. @Eddie Scarpa, could you please refrain from these bulk removals before first discussing this here? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the project should work toward both removing a mass chunk of people to not make the lists too long. A good example of what I saw before editing was the May 11 page. I noticed it was much lighter compared to the other DOY pages and had sources next to every single person. I believe if we can shorten the pages and work to add sources to every individual then the pages would be updated and clean enough.

I have noticed trends where these pages are biased toward certain individuals, notably stub articles from Estonians, Australians, and many, many athletes.

There is a reason the year pages such as 1990 removed including long lists of births and deaths in favor of putting them into a category page Category:1990 births. Other year pages such as 1960 include a list of some notable people and many do not have sources. I know it is a different project, but I believe that the formatting should be shortened since it is usually much longer in length then the "Events," "Deaths," and "Holidays and Observances" sections. Eddie Scarpa (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expand geography and subject matter

I'm really enjoying the history of individual dates, and thanks to all the contributors! It's a bit Amero-Eurocentric and has a heavy emphasis on battles and warfare, though. These pages could include more histories related to other continents (there are some references, but not many), and it could include more histories of arts, sciences, and technology. That would take more work, I realize, and hopefully I can contribute after I finish a book I'm working on. It would also lengthen the pages, but perhaps there can be more headers to organize content by continent or main topic (Military, Art, Science, etc). In the meantime, until I can free up more time, perhaps someone else can consider starting on some of these improvements. 2601:204:F101:4F50:148D:BD08:6B6A:B685 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]