Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

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


India's BCCI (Cricket Control Board) has been there since the time of founding of ICC (International Cricket Council). However South Africa, due it's apartheid policies joined ICC only many years later. But India's first win over South Africa in any ICC World Cup Match happened only on 22 February 2015. It is a historical moment for both India as well as South Africa- both these countries are closely associated with Apartheid and Non-Violence movements of Gandhi and Mandela. I would like to add the following entry under "Events" for February 22nd 2015 : "India beats South Africa for the first time ever in an ICC World Cup Match" Iyerwall (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not notable in this context. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Highlighted Sundays in the calendars[edit]

The ISO 8601 standard declares that every week begins on Monday instead of Sunday; many major English-speaking countries outside of the Americas follow this structure in their calendars.

To clarify the calendars for those who are more used to Monday-Sunday rows, I propose to have Sundays highlighted with colouring in the calendars (using either the Portuguese or Spanish Wikipedia as an example).

-2TonyTony (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard any complaints. Seems like it ain't broke. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't surprised this hadn't been mentioned before, but it doesn't mean it's not worth addressing. And even if it's not broken, it can be improved. Just a small additional visual cue would be enough and benefit all users. The easiest solution could be to have "Su" (for Sunday) colored dark red in the calendar's top row. Would there be any notable downsides for this change? -2TonyTony (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Project to add more women to Days of the Year[edit]

Hello, there! There is a project proposal active to add more women to the days of the year. We'd like to keep within the guidelines of the pages, just adding births, deaths, and major notable events for women who are already the subject of Wikipedia pages. Currently we are gathering interested researchers and editors and information.

I have a question about accepted changes and reviews: are these done on a regular basis, and would it help or hurt to have multiple edits on a single day? Currently the plan is to analyze a month of days and then edit those days the next month, potentially adding a bunch of edits over a few days. If there's a better way to go about something like this, please let me know. Thanks! Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mufka: adding a ping for the most active member re: instructions on your talk page to leave messages for you on DOY pages. I'd like to get feedback on how to avoid missteps when adding new entries to DOTY pages. I have read and linked to the style guide in my project proposal. Is this sufficient?

Since this is a content question, you might get better input at WT:DOY. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks! Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Joined up, what can I help with?[edit]

I've added myself to the list of members, as I am interested in this project. The watchlist link is dead with no forwarding address. I'm interested in assisting with any backlog, writing the bot that has been proposed for births and deaths, and assisting editors with the Adding Women to DOY project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talkcontribs) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Early discussion about possible new WF entity, wikialmanac[edit]

I was thinking about, maybe, trying to set up perhaps a new WF entity to deal specifically with "this day in history" type material.

One of the reasons this occurred to me is I recently looked at one of our telephone recorded information numbers in my area, "Dial-a-Saint," and realized that the daily content it included is pretty much exclusively Roman Catholic, which is no big surprise considering the comparative size of that body as opposed to others and the fact that a Catholic group seems to be its sponsor. For those of you who have never dialed such a number, the material presented tends to be one or two minutes of generally biographical material on the individual in question, generally highlighting the "holy" things the person did, and ends with a short prayer. The content, in general, is probably a lot like what we would have in a fully developed lede section with an additional prayer. Other material which might be included might be a link to a full article on the topic, and, maybe, to various books by or about the subject. There are no similar equivalent readily-available services for Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox, or Anglican, or Lutheran churches which also maintain similar liturgical calendars, or any other groups. At least, not that I have been able to find.

Given the ease with which some people can now access such information from cell phones and similar devices, it may well be possible now to basically set up similar locations on the net for the groups mentioned above, and any other groups I may have not thought of. It might I suppose also be possible to set up more focused material on the calendars of, for instance, the RC church in the US or other episcopal conferences, the separate churches of the Anglican Communion, the calendars of churches and monasteries associated with specific religious orders, and so on. So far as I can tell, there aren't any similar entities to these Dial-a-Saint numbers out there.

Beyond the purely religious topics, it might also be possible to, for instance, contact some of the various GLAM entities and see if they might have any interest in helping but together similar material for, for instance, individual cities, subnational entities, countries, disciplines, or other fields. It might work best to have something like a "Portal" page linking to the various daily or other pages for a given topic area in some way, making them easier to access. But, for instance, if my local Missouri History Museum were to help generate a list of topics to be included in a "today in Missouri history" portal, or the alternate dial-a-saint numbers, I have to think that a regularly updated "portal" type page for such a topic might get a lot of traffic, and, potentially, increase traffic to wikipedia pages dealing with those topics, and maybe wikisource pages on the various books or other works related to the topic.

Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It might help to create an example, of what you envisage a page (or two) of this proposed idea would look like. E.g. How would the new page-type differ from the existing August 20? What other page-types would exist, beyond [[month day]]?
If I understand correctly, you want to have that [[month day]] page exactly as it is, but with some added "filters", so that it can show a reader a reduced subset of "items related to X" (where X is something like: geographical location, subject area (e.g. math, or military, or religion), and timespan (this time last year, over the last n years, etc)). Is that at all accurate?
At root... I'm wondering if this ought to be a manually created project at all, or if instead it's the kind of thing best handled via database... It should theoretically be possible (either now, or in the future) to generate the existing August 20 page entirely from Wikidata entries; but also, in all the languages that we work with (hence saving each language from having to do it independently). Thoughts? Quiddity (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is more or less proposing a separate WF entity, like Wikibooks, Wikisource, etc. I'm asking here at wikipedia because, basically, there are more editors here, but I intend to propose the creation of such an entity at Meta after some beginning discussion here. The structure of the site might be seen as being a series of interrelated "portals," which include either one or more items relevant for that particular topical area, and include one or more sections for the individual "today in history" type short pieces to be possibly? completely transcluded into them. So, maybe, something like Portal:Rhode Island (chosen at random), with separate boxes for however many selected "anniversary" articles as might be created there, gives the rough idea of what the portals there might look like. I honestly don't know whether the separate articles would necessarily be transcluded into the alternating pages, or created at them. There are probably a lot of technical details that would need to be ironed out at Meta, and I have to admit I am probably not the best person to necessarily come up with a proposal. The idea is to, basically, have a separate site with brief articles on events of a "today in history" type which would exist as a entirely separate entity, but which would probably be in a lot of ways derivative from the content of the relevant Wikipedia articles. I hope that makes some sense. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on "this day in Trinidad and Tobago" for some time. This might be worth mulling over. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

How to consistently and precisely describe entries in Births/Deaths sections? Especially of persons from ex-Yugoslavia territory[edit]

Hi, there! I've noticed too many inconsistencies in notes beside people's names, which should describe a particular person's descent/lineage. I don't know what drives people to add entries - I can speak for myself. Since I'm one of not that many who belong to a "small" nation, I was interested in adding names of people who, I believe, deserve to be mentioned beside many other important people from around the world (even beside those who are, frankly, not that important for our global cultural heritage nor particularly excellent in their fields of work). Additionally, I noticed inconsistencies in descriptions: e.g. Ivo Andrić (1961 Nobel Laureate for Literature) is listed as Serbian novelist in "Births", and as Croatian novelist in "Deaths"; or one football manager is listed as Yugoslav-Croatian, while other is listed as Serbian, although the second one was of Montenegrian descent and was managing Yugoslav national team for much longer time than the first one, listed as Yugoslav-Croatian. On the other hand, Ivan Lendl or Miloslav Mecir are not listed as Czechoslovakian-Czech nor Czechoslovakian-Slovak (tennis players), but as Czech and Slovak. (Yes, Mecir is Slovak, not Czech.) Having in mind a timeline longer than the last several decades, I'm for describing cultural circle people belong to based on: a) names of currently internationally recognized countries/nations (e.g. Dante, Petrarca or Boccaccio hadn't lived in what is now called Italy, but it's OK to describe them as Italian novelists/poets); b) people's belonging to those countries by birth/school/work/death (I don't have The Godfathers' song in mind!), ethnic background and their personal choice. Thus, e.g. Mirko Kovač belongs mostly to Montenegrian (by origin), Serbian (by his work in his mature years), and Croatian (by his writing in Croatian language (and living/dying there) during last >20 years of his life); when we say "Yugoslav", I believe we, kind of, blur the picture whether those people belong also to Slovenian and Macedonian origin (Kovač, for instance, never wrote in the languages of these two nations).

Anyway, I honestly put an effort, besides knowing "something" (and even a lot) about those people, to check the encyclopedic/wikipedic entries about their lives, and follow what I find fact-based (not label-based), ethical and consistent. I'm sure that there are much more people willing to add an entry than there are those who are willing to dedicate their time to go through all the entries and edit them. And... I don't know how to operatively solve this. I mean, with the amount of data and entries editors are supposed to deal with, I can imagine that they don't have the time (nor will) to engage in each and every discussion. However, I know, and I shared some of the examples, those edits are not always more precise nor truthful than initial entries.

I really don't want nor intend to engage into "edit warring"; this is why I try to write the explanation for my "labeling". It mostly comes out of experience (without exception, checking also with available resources, on Internet, and !in paper").

Anyone having ideas? Thx ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the "ethnic warring" has spilled over into "days of the year" pages. But apart form that I would think you are safe to make "days of the year" entries follow the person's article.
I don't see a problem with someone being born one nationality, and dying another, especially where borders have changed in living memory.
We want a certain amount of brevity, so "Fooian composer, born in what was then Barland" might be excessive - the biography will provide all the details.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

National Cherry Popsicle Day[edit]

I have removed this from 26 August - is there a guideline that items that don't have their own article (at least) shouldn't be included? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

Here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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, Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire site 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 (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 (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)

Yes check.svg 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] (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. -- (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)