Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Ceres[edit]

Can the image of Ceres at least use one of the modern close-ups from Dawn? Using a blurry Hubble picture is not a good representation of any extraterrestrial object, especially if we have better imagery available. SounderBruce 04:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Proposal: Addition to OTD[edit]

Currently, ITN carries a small section for those who have recently died. OTD does not have a similar section for those who died on this day in history. Therefore I propose that a small section is added to the botttom of OTD entitled "Died on this day" or similar. It is to feature a maximum of three links to articles of people (or animals) that died on the day in question. Such article to be assessed at B class at minimum. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems we would need a "Born on this day" as well. If we do these both, we would have to go down to four blurbs as the standard (space permitting). Not sure I like that. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Howcheng: Born on this day is a good point. What about featuring one of each? How would that impact Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If we do everything on one line, that would probably work, so maybe we can fit two each per day (quality permitting). We might be able to make up the space by shortening the existing blurbs as well. I would suggest also that we have to be some sort of notability threshold, but I can see how that might become too subjective. Perhaps saying the B-quality minimum would be enough, as it would probably be difficult to write one about an obscure politician or musician. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to write a script that would display a random birth date and death date article from a list of approved articles? We've done such things before that randomly displayed links from a menu of links, so I'm pretty sure it can be done. That way, valid articles get highlighted on the appropriate day, but we could keep the whole thing on one line. Just a thought. --Jayron32 17:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see birthdays rather than deaths, with priority to milestone birthdays (if the subject is still living). There's enough death on the main page as it is. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Birthdays looks like a grand idea to me. Each year article (e.g. 2000) has a suitable that could be cherry-picked from, and while it may be a bit of work in the early stages, it'd be a good addition. I'd happily help out with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of working from the individual day articles, such as 3 February. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Either way, we should easily be able to sift some decent articles out. I'm in. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Firm proposal[edit]

Taking into account the above discussion, it would seem that the is a general consensus forming in favour of the proposal. Time for some firm details- OTD to have a "born" and "died" section, each containing a maximum of two links to people/animals that were born/died on the day in question. Eligible articles to be of B class and above. No article is to be listed again once it has appeared in either section (i.e. if appearing as a birth, cannot appear as a death on a different date). Those whose date of death is unknown are treated on a case by case basis (e.g. date last known to be alive, date officially declared dead, etc). Notability is demonstrated by having an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support I think I'll use my own judgement and common sense rather than try to stick to a rigid and incomplete set of criteria (e.g. I'd add no maintenance tags, no massive BLP violations etc but that's just something we should always do) but otherwise this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, great idea for births and deaths. There's a couple of tweaks we can do to lessen the column length impact: Lose the 'current date/ Reload the page' at the bottom of OTD, perhaps moving the date into the OTD header, and make the mainpage columns 50/50% rather than 55/45%. The names should probably have the year in brackets after, such as Born: Joe Blogs (1878). Died: John Smith (1982). But these are all details we can work out in due course. Stephen 23:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    You know, I've been doing OTD for 5 years now and I swear, I've never noticed the date and "reload this page" link. howcheng {chat} 03:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, with one tweak for greater flexibility: set a maximum of four total links, comprising two "born" and two "died" links whenever feasible, but with the option of varying the ratio on dates with a shortage in one category and surplus in the other (if and when such a situation arises). —David Levy 02:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is a great idea that'll provide extra utility to the Main Page. Instead of sticking with the 'Born:' / 'Died:' leaders and almost requiring that there is one of each, maybe an annotation can be made with the date, thereby allowing for four births if no one of note deceased that day. I'd also like to see the entries in ascending date order, so this idea would facilitate that without requiring the rigid structure of "two and two". Joe Blogs (B:1878), John Smith (D:1982), Jeremy Johns (B:1988). -- NsTaGaTr (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Howcheng: - there have been no objections. Can you produce a mock-up of how this would look please? Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - sorry, just realised I hadn't added this. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Whizz40 was kind enough to make a mockup: User:Whizz40/sandbox. Feedback is appreciated. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the mockup, Whizz40. As it's a mockup, we'll ignore that three of the items would be ineligible. I think we need an extra blank line above the section, which would make it a bit clearer. Not sure we need to state what these people are known for. Not stating this might just arouse some curiosity in the reader and lead to a higher viewing figure (and thus more improvements to the article). Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think "born/died" is necessary, I think the text is self-explanatory, otherwise I'm okay with it. I have a vague concern that we'll have small issues over how to describe each individual in a few words without sometimes creating more heat than light, but that's a minor issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've sized it to a more realistic 45% width, and concur that we should lose 'born/died' and their description. Stephen
  • I agree that the 'born/died' text is unnecessary. I don't think the description is really needed either, as pointed out above. I'd go down the rabbit hole much quicker if I had to seek out the information myself than having it fed to me. Finally, do we want to stick with births first, then deaths, or list them all chronologically? - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 22:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • From feedback so far I've removed born/died, removed the descriptions, no-wrapped the dates, and reordered by date (which for the examples is deaths then births). Looks tighter. Stephen 01:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I like that, it looks really good. Do 'we' maybe want to limit it to one line to try and avoid the wrap? That would probably limit it to three entries per day, which is a downside. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment should we reduce the number of regular OTD items to four if we implement this? Frequently the OTD section outweighs the DYK section and leads to main page imbalance, and that's without the line or two of births/deaths... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Why not leave it as a flexible filler, with a usual maximum of four, but scope to increase should the circumstances demand it. If there's only three, at least one should be a birth or death. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok, sounds good, right now we usually have five items so we need to make sure the instructions etc reflect the "four plus" approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I don't like the idea of removing one blurb to make room for the births/deaths. Ideally we should try to shorten the wording (that first item in the mockup is way long). howcheng {chat} 19:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • It was never my intention to reduce OTD to accommodate these. So, minimum of two, normal maximum of four but with scope to expand should it prove necessary on the odd occasion. How soon can we get this up and running? Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
            • I was simply commenting on the practical "whole mainpage" issues I see almost daily with regard to balance. Right now it's almost always the right side of the main page that's considerably longer, and adding the births/deaths will exacerbate that. I'm just try to head that problem off early. There is no "normal maximum of four", it's almost always five, unless you're talking about post-implementation? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
              • The Rambling Man I think we're at cross-purposes. I meant between two and four born/died OTDs as the norm. No need to reduce OTD to four blurbs, something that Howcheng has already stated opposition to. This proposal was always about adding to OTD, not removing from it. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
                • Ok, so we will have a daily problem, particularly now DYK is down to seven hooks per set, rather than eight. The main page will seldom be balanced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
                  • The answer to that is for DYK to add an extra hook. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
                    • Well good luck with that one! Let me know when you've secured that agreement... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
                      • Let's start with just one of each and see how it goes. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The other option, if DYK is now going to be perennially shorter, is to balance the two main page columns to 50/50 rather than 55/45. Balance will then be less sensitive to ITN/OTD length. Stephen 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Agreed, but like Mjroots' suggestion, that now needs buy-in from outside the OTD project. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I think that we should add the one birth and death to OTD, then start a discussion at T:MP re rebalancing the page, including running an extra hook at DYK. Maybe 52/48 would work? Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
          • The arcane machinations of DYK will mean it depends on their throughput. DYK seldom fails any nomination, and when their backlog decreases then you'd get one eight-set per day, but when they are heavy, it increase to two seven-sets per day. Too variable to make assumptions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Howcheng - can we implement this from tomorrow. Suggest Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (b.1922) and Richard of Dover (d.1184) would be a good pair to start with. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is excellent. We will now need to make sure the OTD instructions are updated accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OTD instructions are updated. Please review. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Just a quick note to say that the single B and single D added to the main page is going well. I've noted pageviews in excess of 3,000 for these individuals which is often better than a DYK hook, even pro rata. So that's a really nice result. We may like to think about moving to three or four items per day in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Hi all, just a query on this initiative - where are the admins selecting the b/d bios from? From the year pages? So that requires editors to manually add bios to the year page of the year that person was born/died? (I ask because I write a lot of biographical articles and I'd like to be sure that these articles get considered for this slot). Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as they're picked more than a day in advance, anyone can add them, not just admins. I've been doing it a bit, trying to mix up young and old, American and non-American, man and woman... I use the day articles, e.g. February 23 to select them, and review each one to ensure it is of sufficient quality for the main page. And yes, births and deaths need to be added manually to those pages for every bio you write preferably. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks TRM. So who is picking the ones to go on the main page and where can I make some suggestions for that? e.g. (and these are all B class or higher articles): February 27 Ellen Terry (born 1847) or Elizabeth Taylor (born 1932). February 28 Stephanie Beacham (born 1947) or Bernadette Peters (born 1948). Can someone direct me to the right page for making suggestions such as these? Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Stephanie Beacham lacks complete referencing. As TRM said, you can add to any OTD that's not protected, so those that are more than a day out. Perhaps ping User:Howcheng to let him know. Stephen 10:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The criteria for articles which can be included in this slot need to be clarified. The guidelines state "articles must be B class or higher" but I see User:The Rambling Man has removed some of my suggestions of B class articles on the grounds of insufficient referencing. If a certain level of referencing is required in addition to B class status, then that needs to be mentioned in the guidelines - otherwise they are misleading. MurielMary (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed items that I will simply bring to ERRORS as being poorly referenced. I'm not sure I ever agree with any criteria that relates to our own internal classification mark, I recently added one which was apparently a C-class article yet should probably have been a Good Article. While we're here, we need to also address the issue of internationalism vs gender. While it's a noble prospect to get around 50% of the b/d to be female, that's not actually representative of the articles we have on Wikipedia, and not only that, it will be prejudicing against non-white-Western individuals as we have very few decent articles on minority/non-white-Westerners, and most of them that are decent are about men. Not saying that it's right but before we strive headlong for the male/female 50/50, we need to be a touch more circumspect given the catalogue of articles we have to work with. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Being B-class by itself doesn't mean the other rules don't apply. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The B-class issue thing is minor, it's a "should" and so it should be. Who cares what arbitrary classification an article is given unless it's a GA or an FA? In all other cases it's simply a guess. What's more pertinent is the rush to make the b/d a 50/50 m/f thing to the exclusion of the minorities. Just be watchful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on the internal classification system, good to know that TRM successfully added a C class article. As I was reading articles and looking at their class rating, there certainly were inconsistencies in quality in each class. BTW my recent adds weren't part of any "rush to make b/d 50/50 male/female", just looking for a wider range of articles in this slot than has appeared thus far - range including gender as well as ethnicity, reason for notability, historical era etc. I appreciate that there is a smaller pool of articles for any group who isn't a white male, however there is still a reasonable pool to pull from. MurielMary (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
All of your additions thus far have been Western white women from the 19th and 20th centuries. That's hardly a wide range. Stephen 02:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'd added so far included men, women, ancient, modern, sports, literature, politics, non-American, non-English. I think the range I provided was perfectly reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned over on Women in Red, of the 26 biographies profiled in the first 13 days of this initiative, 19 were of white men, 3 of white women, 3 of non-white men and 1 of a non-white woman. To me that's not a reasonable range for gender and ethnicity, hence my edits to add white and non-white women as I come across them. Definitions of "reasonable range" and "wide range" clearly differ between editors. It's interesting that featuring 19/26 biographies on white men isn't considered problematic but adding some white women is considered a huge problem. MurielMary (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

C class articles[edit]

When I set the original criteria, I set it at B class and above for the specific reason of avoiding poorly referenced articles being linked from the Main Page. However, some C class articles have been listed. Should we relax things to allow C class and above, or stick to B class, which allows for articles that are C class to be reassessed against the B class criteria and promoted should they meet it. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's the classifications of the articles that's the problem. Please re-visit what "C-class" actually means and see if that matches what you believe the quality of those three articles you've objected to featuring here. I very much believe not, and it's almost invariably down to the fact that the assessmentas either haven't been updated on the talk page or are simply incorrect. Classifications are probably not a suitable way of judging the quality of an article, it's been dropped by ITN for this very reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Classifications are a way of judging the quality of an article, particularly for GA and above. Many B class articles are probably capable of reaching GA without too much work. Agree that referencing standards need to be taken into account, whatever the rating of an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Classifications are a way of judging the quality of an article, but are seldom reliable when judging start -> C -> B. That's why ITN dropped it altogether. And that's why your objection to those three articles based on classification alone is without real foundation. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Per TRM, the issue is not whether the article has been assessed as "B" class, but whether the article should be assessed as B-class. For articles that have not gone through the proper assessment for whatever reason, there's no need to hold them up for some silly bureaucracy. It should be "would it be B-class if anyone had yet bothered to so assess it" and not "has anyone formally assessed it yet". Just as we don't post badly under-referenced articles on the main page even if someone hasn't tag-bombed them yet, we also should be assessing quality ourselves, and not just trusting some arbitrary tag or talk page note. --Jayron32 18:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

TRM and I seem to differ on the criteria for including biographies in the birth/death slot. I think it's anyone who has a WP article and hence added Bobbi Brown for March 4, however TRM has removed this twice on the grounds that she hasn't achieved anything, isn't encyclopedic and doesn't do anything for women. Can we have a discussion about this as this sets a precedent for other biographies to be excluded on similar grounds. Or do the guidelines need to be adapted to include TRM's criteria, in which case every nomination is going to be up for subjective discussion. Why can't we include all 3 biographies nominated for this day? MurielMary (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You've already got your way with three bios, two women that day, 2/2 women the next day, 2/2 women the next day. I'd say you've managed to redress the balance. Overcompensating probably. Positive discrimination possibly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
9 of the first 13 days of this initiative featured 2/2 men. So you think that 3 or 4 days with 2/2 women is redressing or even overcompensating? Interesting. Also, really, the tone of your comment that "you've got your way" is very odd. This isn't about one editor "getting their way", it's about creating a main page which features content which reflects WP and the world. It's not anyone's personal "way". That's why there are guidelines to follow. MurielMary (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
What proportion of FA bios are about women? GAs? Since there are so few quality articles to choose from, and you're picking 2/2 women every day, it'll mean next year will be particularly bereft of such bios. You have got your way, hope you enjoy it! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, or perhaps by next year there'll be more quality women's bios to feature, newly written by the editors who see the women's bios on the main page and are inspired to write something of similar quality. One of the reasons representation is important is for showing people what can be achieved. Yes, ever the optimist, me. MurielMary (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You summarily failed to answer my question, but I suppose we probably already have an inkling of the answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we agreed that articles only get one appearance in births/deaths and no more after that. However, I would like it so that they don't repeat year after year either. Diversity in gender, historical era, reason for notability, and geography is desired as well. howcheng {chat} 06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course, but not to the point of overcompensating. And we definitely should not repeat these b/d's for the sake of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Overlap with other parts of the main page[edit]

Just noticed that two of the entries in the birth/death section today are already represented on the main page with the FA and the Featured Picture. (Van Gogh and Juan). We might need to cast an eye over the remainder of the main page layout prior to confirming the birth/death section to avoid this happening? What do people think? It does make the main page appear a little repetitive and lacking in range. MurielMary (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Range of entries[edit]

I notice that the guidelines for OTD in general state "7.As much as possible, the array of topics should include a variety of years (e.g., not just limited to the 20th/21st centuries), geographical areas (e.g., more than just the English-speaking world), and subjects (e.g., not too many articles on war or technology)." I'd like to suggest that a statement such as this is also added to part 6 of the guidelines to recommend editors include a broad range of subjects in the birth/death section. I note that currently the staging areas for upcoming dates are extremely heavy on white European men of around 1700s-1900s with intellectual/musical achievements, which doesn't reflect a range of topics, years, geographical areas or subjects. A guideline to this effect might assist? Pinging howcheng and Sollemne for their input here. Thanks MurielMary (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you referring to? April 1 features a woman, an African American and European from the 16th-century. April 2's two inclusions are a monarch from in the 1600s and a pope who died this century. April 3 includes a Hindu religious leader. April 4 features a monarch who predates the period. April 5? That's all it consists of. None of April 6 fits your description. Two of April 7 predate the period. April 8 actually has two 20th-century women. April 9 has another 20th-century woman. None of April 10 or April 11 fits your description... --Sollemne (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I will do a detailed breakdown of what I mean and post it here later. MurielMary (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course, please also include a detailed breakdown of the "available choices" too, i.e. those which are applicable to the main page as a result of their significant quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

6 February[edit]

This discussion is copied from Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/today

The Reagan article says it is recognized in 21 states, which is not "most".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: There is more traffic and a better chance of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. Whizz40 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Whizz40:I have had no prior involvement in the OTD feature. I fielded a request sent to Wikimedia at OTRS.
I thought I would start by looking at wp:OTD, which helpfully redirects to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries.
I looked thought that page to see if there was any guidance for reporting errors, and saw none.
I thought perhaps the guidance would be on each days page, so I came to Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/today (which is updated, but was 6 Feb when I visted it.
Again, no hint on how to report an error, so I followed the general convention of commenting on the talk page.
If you have any involvement in this initiative, I hope you will find a way to add information about reporting errors either on the general page, or on the specific page.
Does this make sense?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, the Selected Anniversaries pages can be a bit of a maze to navigate. I copied the discussion to here and added guidance about reporting errors on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. The change to the Regan article on Feb 6 I will leave to others. Whizz40 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Whizz40:Thank-you for that improvement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick a trivial Google search on "Ronald Reagan Day" revealed this for me. Forty states. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I naively assumed OTD was something like DYK and would relate to a Wikipedia article, as did the person who wrote to Wikimedia, noting the disconnect between the claim and the article. One or the other should be corrected. I've had a tiny bit of involvement with DYK, where the process includes (after some embarrassing shortcomings) a verification that the "hook" is supported by a reliable source. Is that not the case with OTD? If so, perhaps the feature should be shut down. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I have updated the article with a reference to the 40 states. Stephen 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, one would hope that blurbs are cited within each article at OTD and DYK, there may be the odd issue at OTD (far fewer than at DYK) but as I noted, a trivial Google search plus the addition of one line to the article (which anyone could have done) would have solved that, in this case. We also have WP:ERRORS, so perhaps you could direct the OTRS complainant that way next time, for a more expedient (sometimes) result. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Judith Kaplan Eisenstein - March 18[edit]

Hi, haven't nominated for On this Day or Did You Know before and was going to nominate Judith Kaplan Eisenstein's page as: Did you know Judith Kaplan was the first woman to celebrate a Bat Mitzvah publicly which she did on March 18, 1922 aged 12. But am I right in thinking the article is not new enough (i.e. created in last 7 days) for Did You Know or 5-fold expanded in last seven days? And is not B-class quality or higher so cannot be considered for On this Day either? Stinglehammer (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: OTD does not have a minimum assessment requirement. We only ask that the articles are well referenced and free of maintenance tags. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Main page column widths[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Main page column widths regarding balancing the Main page and provide your comments. Stephen 00:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Holidays starts at night, which day to show on Wiki?[edit]

Moved from Talk:Main Page

I want to start this discussion to get more input. I've seen for the past couple of days where a holiday is listed as "holiday begins at sundown" and then the next day the holiday is not listed at all. I suggest that the day of the holiday should be listed, and maybe if needed, the day before display, "holiday begins at sundown." The primary should be the actual day, not the few hours of the evening. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For holidays that span a period of multiple days, don't we generally list the day it begins? There doesn't seem to be a functional difference between a Jewish holiday that spans a 24-hour period over two days, and something like Lent which spans a period of 40 days. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
So there could be a difference between Passover (which is a multi-day holiday), which you can say Passover begins at sunset, and Purim or other one-day holidays. Today for example is Shushan Purim (which is only celebrated in a few cities) and yesterday was "regular" Purim, celebrated the rest of the world. So for these holidays, the day itself should be listed, especially since the celebrations of the holiday is mostly by day, and not the few hours of the evening.(That is how it's usually shown on calendars, not that it means much.) Sir Joseph (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This should really be discussed at WT:OTD rather than here, as it only relates to a single aspect of that section. They have for many years listed sunset-to-sunset holidays on the (UTC) date they begin, though I don't know how well reasoned that policy is. Either way it's an issue for the WP:OTD project to resolve, rather than T:MP. Modest Genius talk 16:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't see anywhere where it was decided to list when it begins and not the day when the main events/holiday is. I think it certainly makes sense for a one day holiday to be on the day itself, not the night before. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we're pretty consistent about listing on the night before. Actually I prefer that. I could really see someone Jewish, but not very knowledgeable about Judaism, seeing "Today begins Passover" and saying, "Oh, yeah. I guess I should make a seder tonight." Better list it on the eve—it's unambiguous, because we say "at sundown"—than on the day, when it would be too late. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Then I think it should be both. People are going to look up and see that no holiday is listed during the day and wonder. For example, yesterday was Purim but Wikipedia didn't say that. The majority of the day and the majority of the people are celebrating during the day and that should be reflected in what is highlighted. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I feel more strongly about keeping the night (before) in. I'm neutral on also including the next day. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For an outside perspective, I found it confusing, multiple times. If a holiday starts at sunset on a given day, it should, in my mind, be listed on the day of the sunset, not the following day. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

OTD has a general policy of not listing the same article on multiple days when possible. Obviously something like Mother's Day, which is observed on different days in different countries will be an exception, but it didn't seem right for these types of holidays to get more than one "bite of the apple". They are mostly Jewish holidays, but I think there are some Islamic ones that fit this category as well. Regardless, I don't particularly care if they are listed on the primary day or the day when they actually start, but they should only appear once. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that forcing them into the template that works for most Western holidays doesn't treat them fairly. Other holidays only appear on one day whether you look at them as a 24 hour period (from midnight to midnight) or as a calendar day (Monday, Tuesday, etc). These two points of view align for those days. Jewish and Islamic holidays fall on two calendar days but are basically only one 24 hour period each, said period simply not matching the calendar days. If they are only posted on their start date they are on the "wrong" day for most of that time based on the sundown to sundown definition of the holidays. If they are only posted on their main day they are still showing on the wrong day for a significant number of hours. No one would accept Independence Day being listed on July 3rd or Bastille Day on July 13th, but that is effectively what we do to these holidays. We could post them for the time period running from one (approximately) sundown UTC to the next, but it would be more work to keep up. --Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think it's that the template "doesn't treat them fairly". They are still run for 24 hours, and all they have, in excess of other such anniversaries, is a caveat, such as "starting at sunset". I don't think there's a problem here at all, other than aligning the start of such anniversaries with the standard calendar that our readers would mainly understand. And if further explanation is needed, then it should really be in the target article, and therein lies a different issue. The examples of Independence Day or Bastille Day being listed on the incorrect day are not equivalent at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is that if only one day is to be listed, then it should be the main day, not the evening before, and in all the holiday articles I'm familiar with, it does mention that it starts the evening before. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Then it should be caveated with "from sunset the previous day" because the articles will say that the day is celebrated on the day of the sunset. This isn't about our personal preferences, this is about not confusing readers who may not be conversant with Jewish or Arabic or other such traditions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with that, similar to how it's now worded (...begins sunset). I do think it would be better for the readers as well, since in many cases they might be looking based on seeing the holiday on their calendar or seeing some celebration. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying you'd prefer it to be the day itself ("begins sunset") or the day after ("began sunset the day before")? Logic dictates the former (and that's the status quo). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer Today is Purim (began sunset the day before), since the majority of the holiday and the bulk of the celebrations are during the day. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer status quo, perhaps with "starting at sundown, through sundown tomorrow" for one-day events, for reasons I stated above. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also prefer the status quo. Such holidays do begin at sunset (or more technically in Jewish custom shortly after, when at least 3 stars can or could be seen in an unclouded sky) and the actions of those observing them are dictated by that: contrary to Sir Joseph above, the evening and night-time portions are significant and may feature important rituals or behaviour. If we only list them from the beginning (00:00:01?) of the following day, the announcement is late by several hours.
Now, it's doubtful that many who actually want to observe the holiday need Wikipedia to alert them to it, but others who may need an explanation of what's going on deserve it promptly, not the following day when it's half over. One can imagine, for example, a Gentile (like myself) planning to visit a Jewish friend in the evening and then realising they'd better not.
I agree with Khajidha above and suggest that if, for example, such a holiday begins on the 21st, to put up on the 21st "Xxxx begins at sunset 21st, ending sunset 22nd", or similar, and leave it up over the 22nd. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.20.195} 90.202.209.145 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A date on the Jewish calendar is generally associated, on calendars with Western dates, to be on the same day as its daytime falls, not that of its nighttime. As such, if only one day is chosen for it, it should match the daytime, not the nighttime. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be the day time. The complaint about people missing a few hours is just weird. OTD follows UTC as does the rest of wikipedia. This means when Chinese New Year is listed on OTD on the main page, it's already been 13 hours here in NZ. And of course the reunion dinner happens on the evening anyway. Even where the bulk of people who celebrate the day live, it's already been 8 hours. Heck since this obvious applies to all things from the NZ POV, when Anzac Day appears, this is nearly after the half day specific by Anzac Day Act (New Zealand) is over. (Then you get those complaints about how it isn't Thanksgiving day for a few hours more.) Of course you could look at OTD for the current day in NZ, but you could also do that with other stuff with the recognition of such complexities. What matters is what is the day in the Gregorian calendar which is most strongly associated with the day. I know in Malaysia at least for the Eids and other events, this is the day after the sunset. So far I haven't see anyone really disputing this applies to other cultures and religions as well. I'd note that for most such Muslim festivals, the actual day of celebration can vary from place to place and even from tradition to tradition within a place anyway which makes the "we need to tell people before otherwise they miss part of the day" further flawed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks without a comment here. Anyone prepared to derive a conclusion from this morass? We need a "trustworthy admin"!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking at Nil Einne's comment above that "this is nearly after the half day specific by Anzac Day Act (New Zealand) is over", what surprises me is that the article Anzac Day Act (New Zealand) doesn't actually specify the date of ANZAC Day! (It's today, for anyone wondering... and like all sensible people, I use egocentric time with definitions relative to my location, and so those living in the past (ie. America) just need to accept that they are wrong about today because otherwise it'll be yesterday most of their tomorrow and there'll be no today in which case the observance will be missed, disrespecting our veterans.) EdChem (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vera Lynn[edit]

Vera Lynn is 100 on 20 March. I've added her to the OTD entry for that day, but there is a section with a refimprove tag. I'm hoping that this can be addressed over the weekend and that the article will be in a good enough condition to post. Failing which, I can see complaints being raised at T:MP. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion in born / died OTD - where to add suggestions[edit]

After seeing a discussion on TRM's talk page, I have added a bunch of biographies to the individual day articles. I'm now wondering where I should make suggestions for potential OTD appearances. For example:

  • Hans Freeman, GA article, b. 26 May 1929
  • Ludwig Mond, B-class according to Chemistry WikiProject, b. 7 March 1839, d. 11 December 1909
  • William Christopher Zeise, needs more referencing but clearly not a Stub as currently rated, b. 15 October 1789, d. 12 November 1847
  • John Plankinton, at least B-class IMO though the lede needs lengthening, b. 11 March 1820, d. 29 March 1891
  • Elizabeth Plankinton, B-class IMO though lede needs lengthening, b. 27 July 1853
  • David Kato, d. 26 January 2011

Any comments on improvements for these specifically are welcome, but I'm also wondering where I should make suggestions in general when I see suitable articles or have improved articles. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just add them to the relevant day, following the prescribed format. There have been a couple of users adding births and deaths, but there are still many gaps. If the articles are well referenced, and there's a good mix of gender, ethnicity and history on each day, in line with the coverage of articles we have, your additions will be very much appreciated. Stephen 05:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there a restriction on using articles which have appeared elsewhere as bold links on the main page, like DYK or ITN? EdChem (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
No, as they're one off appearances. However, the article can only appear once in OTD in the year. So birth or death but not both, and not if they appear in an OTD blurb on another date. The article talk should list prior MP appearances. Howcheng keeps excellent records. Stephen 06:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't take credit for that. It's AnomieBOT that does that piece. @EdChem: If the day already has its quota of birth/death articles, feel free to add your suggestions into the staging area. That way next year, we'll have them ready to go. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I've had a related question in mind recently - where to put suggestions for born/died this day entries for days which have already occurred this year (i.e. the January to April pages now show the articles used in the 2017 version of OTD - where to put suggestions for 2018?) howcheng are you suggesting we add these to the staging area in the "eligible" section? MurielMary (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@MurielMary: Yes, I think that would be the most logical place. Just put them under the eligible blurbs in the same format as we use for it normally. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, howcheng. I did some editing of those pages (Jan-April for 2018 suggestions) last night so I hope it's all looking ok. Let me know if you'd rather things were done differently. MurielMary (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Balance issues[edit]

Greetings folks. After being drawn into OTD through ERRORS, I've been looking through the OTD pages, and the problem of an anglospheric bias is quite severe. Now of course Wikipedia as a whole has this problem, and its rather unsurprising: but it seems to me that of all the main page slots, OTD has the largest potential domain to choose from, and so we could address this issue at OTD relatively easily. Aside from "let's just try to do better", which is good but not enough, does anybody have any practical suggestions as to how to address this problem? Is it technically feasible to have a bot search for articles with certain birth/death dates? Should we ask members of Wikiprojects on underrepresented areas to make sure to add their creations to the lists for each day? I'm just tossing out ideas: any others, and any constructive suggestions, would be welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to balance issues with the OTD achievements/notable events/occasions list, or with the newly added "born/died this day" section or both? TIA MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Both: I don't think they are separate issues, really. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Right. Firstly, I agree with you that there are bias issues with OTD (not only anglospheric, but often of historical period or type of achievement or gender). Sometimes these issues are a result of a lack of quality articles on under-represented areas, but often there isn't a lack of quality articles, it's a case of a lack of inclusion of those quality articles. Maybe because they are not nominated by editors for inclusion, or they are nominated and not selected. I agree that more can be done and I did think a while ago that posting on relevant project boards (African or Asian projects for example) and drawing editors' attention to the OTD lists would be a good idea as I think there is a lack of awareness of the OTD list pages. Just haven't got around to it yet! MurielMary (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there's always going to be someone disagreeing with the content of the births/death section, if someone is prepared to do so, record these individuals by ethnicity, gender, genre, achievement, etc etc, otherwise this will become WP:PERENNIAL. Please don't fall into the temptation of "over-compensating" by flooding OTD with certain ethnicity, gender, genre, achievement etc. The primary requirement is that the article is of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde, if you are looking to add quality articles from more diverse demographics etc then looking at the lists of Good Articles can be a helpful starting point. Or searching the categories for B class articles (B class being the minimum standard for inclusion in OTD - or an article which isn't currently classed as B class but which meets the standard of a B class article). MurielMary (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@TRM: I don't want to flood OTD with poor quality articles; this would not address the more fundamental problem, which is the skew in what Wikipedia covers. The point I am trying to make is that given that only feature about ten articles a day, finding quality articles that are representative of the scope of the encyclopedia (rather than of the interests of its prolific editors) should be possible. MurielMary: that's not a bad idea, I'll look into that. Vanamonde (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: add the current United Nations day[edit]

So today is World Press Freedom Day - a United Nations day. More info can be found at: List of international observances and Category:United Nations days.

It made me wonder whether such days are featured in the On this day... section of the frontpage - and apparently they aren't yet featured!

Hence here I'm suggesting to add the current United Nation day (if existent) into that section.

Where else would be a better place to inform about the current international United Nation day than Wikipedia?

These are of international relevance, are typically about a nontrivial issue, value or event of high significance in the world and are also often issued in the news and cultural events.
I find the rest of that section to be mostly often trivial, mostly of no interest to most people and rather serendipitous. Why should we waste space there - it would fit well at the top or bottom of the page right next to the date.
And in lastly it would be an incentive for people to regularly check the Wikipedia frontpage.

What do you think?

--Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If articles of such nature are of sufficient quality, there's probably nothing stopping them being featured. The World Press Freedom Day article was in a terrible state so it was removed from the OTD section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)