Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

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


On this day in Canada[edit]

It appears that the existing OTD links for Canada are no longer valid. If it's not just a short server outage, all of those links will need to be removed from the pages. Selection of a replacement should be discussed here. Link-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the sort of service Sympatico was known for. Hadn't realized it was still a thing (if it is). The CBC is much more reliable. Could that work? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
With a quick look, I don't see a way to link from each date article to its specific OTD page with CBC. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
No, each month has one page. It's up to the reader to scroll to the right day. If the old pages were something like our articles (a straight list of daily Canadian events, births and deaths), this isn't quite that. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
Alternative link suggested at OTRS ticket # 2016062710026542 is, for example, http://canadachannel.ca/todayincanadianhistory/index.php/June_28 Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire site sympatico.ca has been changed to "the look" and with a redirect to the front page. Can this link be removed until a replacement can be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.27.29 (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1 in India[edit]

A discussion needing your input. The nearest precedent I could find was DoY in Baseball which didn't the most definitive outcome. Thanks for your attention. Bazj (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Films released[edit]

Each date should have a list of Movies that premiered on this date.

Similar concepts would apply to books, video games, cars, and other things released on the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionsdude148 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Format of February 29 page[edit]

Given that there is a bit more content to this page, where should the content that falls outside the usual sections go? A lot of it is tacked onto the start of the "Births" section. I think this info should go up in it's own section before the "Events" section. Thoughts? -- Chuq (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Archduke Ernest of Austria[edit]

The entry in content under births for the date of July 15 has a listing for Archduke Ernest of Austria. This is incorrect, his true birthday is June 15, 1553. The bio page for Archduke Ernest does have the correct birth date.

Also, in the list of birth dates for June 15, Archduke Ernest of Austria is missing. Gingergoodrich (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. This isn't actually the correct place to address that (that would be the associated Talk: pages for each article, if you wanted to discuss the issue; you also could have just made the change yourself), but I went ahead and made the changes. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

HELP! I'm trying to add, Catherine Of Austria, Archduchess Of Austria, to the Death content of February, 10,1524. However, in my attempt each time I try to add her, the list turn red and tells me there is no article for Catherine of Austria. There is an article and also she's listed in Births for July 24, 1468.I know there's a movement to add more female names in Days of the Year. Please help. Gingergoodrich (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Date error on February 22[edit]

On the page for "February 22" you have Frederic Chopin as being born that day, but the wiki article on Chopin says March 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.253.31 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

15th May 1730[edit]

this line links to Hugh Walpole the writer, I'm certain it should link to Robert Walpole the politicianCarltwobob (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. However, this page isn't the best place to raise such issues. In the future, you can make the change yourself or use the talk page associated with the particular article, which would be more appropriate than here. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Day-of-Year births/deaths for people only (again)?[edit]

186.31.83.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added an entry to the Deaths section of July 1 for Cecil the lion [1]. I fixed a formatting problem, and the entry was removed by @MB:. (Which is fine, I had doubts about the notability of Cecil's death anyway).

While the page notice says "...only for people..." (and I was originally going to remove the entry on that basis), there are plenty of exceptions, not least Overdose (horse) just a few lines up from the Cecil entry. This has been discussed at here several times, and none of the archived discussions appear to come to a consensus that an occasional notable animal birth/death should be prohibited, or conversely, allowed. OTOH, some have clearly been permitted in practice.

So I'm first trying to figure out what the policy is. If they should not be included in the lists of births and deaths, then a general cleanup effort should me made to eliminate all of those entries in all of the DoY articles (and possibly some of the other calendrical lists as well), or at least move them to the "events" section.

If animals are permissible in the births/deaths sections, a change to the wording of the page notice would be in order. And even if not, a change to the page notice saying "notable animal births and deaths belong in the events section", would probably be a good idea. Rwessel (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't equate people with animals and thought it was implicit births and deaths meant only of people, not animals, trees, volcanoes, or anything else. The wording "...only for people..." further substantiates that. I would agree to a cleanup moving non-humans to "events". MB (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

November 2, 619[edit]

"619 - Emperor Gaozu allowed the assassination of a khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate by Eastern Turkic rivals, one of the earliest events in the Tang campaigns against the Western Turks."

This is very dubious and should not be posted on the main page of Wikipedia. Tong Yabghu Qaghan (ruled 618-628) wasn't assassinated in 619 and the source didn't point out which qan (or other guests) was assassinated. The source did NOT at all claim any qaghan was assassinated. --146.111.30.193 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

November 10th[edit]

November 10th is going to be the first World Keratoconus Day. what are the requirements to have it added to the November 10 article? k18s (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ndash;... why is this still being used?[edit]

With most projects seeming to move away from the archaic – why is this project still using it instead of the simpler "–"? Less coding would seem to be better. I'm asking because I came across a day of the year article and ran it through the usual wikipedia ndash correction filter and got reverted. It just seemed strange since most of the sports projects use a simple "–" to handle things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"This day is more likely to occur on a ...."[edit]

Why is this put in at the introduction? It is completely arbitrary in that the 400 year window defines its distribution. It's therefore up there with numerology and should really be deleted. I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently, but it really annoys me as it is generally useless. Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Update on private WikiProject Missing Medieval Link[edit]

My private endeavour is nearing completion. You can read about it here. So far I've updated links up to the year 1600. As you can see in the chart below the result is a dent regarding the 17th century; in section Births and Deaths, 17th century persons are currently underrepresented in the date pages.

The number of links on all DOY pages aggragated per century (Section Births)
That's why I've decided to extend the project until the year 1699 end then call it a day. I expect to add another 500 notable persons to the Births section alone (and even more edits correcting errors/discrepancies).

Future plans

Project 'All Who Are Born Must Die'
I noticed that the number of exact birth dates stated in year pages are catching up and overtaking death dates from the late Middle Ages onwards. The entries in the Births sections outnumber those in the Deaths section greatly, sometimes [by a factor of 5 or more]. I suspect that contributors often omit to add the corresponding date of death after stating a person's date of birth on a year page. (Chart shows outdated numbers):
The number of links per DOY page aggregated per century
I will write some software to automatically check for these omitted entries and add them to the Deaths section of the year pages. After that I will insert them into the matching DOY page. In most cases the notability will be not questioned since already an approved entry exists in the Birth section of the corresponding DOY page.

Ongoing activities

  • Wikipedian Peter Schellen has been steadily updating and enriching the year pages since 2009. He started from year 250 BC and is now at 930. I'll be monitoring his progress since his additions are a great source for the DOY pages.
  • Periodically I will run all the years in the period 100 - 1699 through my application to check for additions and errors.

Cheers, Emiel (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Exemption from WP:V[edit]

From the guidelines at 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.

This seems to have been added years ago and is now taken as an obvious tenet. However it seems to fly in the face of WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

There have been a number of discussions about more aggressive monitoring of new additions to Wikicalendar articles, but it's pretty inconsistent. The idea of allowing indirect citations is unique (as I know it) to this guideline. I think the exemption from references should be struck from this guideline. Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. When readers find a statement that is "challenged or likely to be challenged", it is our policy to provide them a direct and easy way to check whether the content is true. Citations are not unnecessary clutter; they are essential to the encyclopedia. It is a disservice to our readers to force them to click on a link and hunt for a citation in an article when we could provide it upfront. I will also note that this page isn't really a {{guideline}}, but more {{WikiProject style advice}}. Per WP:CONLIMITED, it should not be mistaken to override a core policy like WP:BURDEN. Mz7 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Lists are also required to be verifiable, and WikiProject style guides cannot overrule that. Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:SOURCELIST also indicate that each list items should be sourced where they appear. However, WP:LISTVERIFY does mention that obvious entries do not need to be cited, linking as an example to List of fruits. Could this rationale be used to omit citations on births and deaths? (Events should definitely be cited.) —Laoris (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)