Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 9

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

Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10

Correct editing?

I made these two edits:

1. [1] 2. [2]

Are they correct? Any comments?--Siddhant (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No comments. Well, since no one reverted my edits, I assume that they were correct. --Siddhant (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Your comments slipped by in my watchlist. If you look in the page histories, these were all changed to – a few months ago. The reason is that using a dash is correct and using a hyphen is incorrect. The problem is that most editors don't know the difference and they get mixed up. Personally, I don't like the way the – looks in the code, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. So unless there is a compelling reason to make the change, no they shouldn't be changed. Also, if any change were to be made, they should all be changed at the same time to keep them consistent. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, my point is, if "most editors don't know the difference and they get mixed up" then on all Wikipedia articles we must use – instead of a dash. Btw, I myself learned the difference on Wikipedia itself (long time ago). I learned from my mistakes, the others will also. I still think my edits were correct. Well if you still disagree, then please change it back since I think that you have been a long time member of this project. If I am missing a point please point out. Thanks! --Siddhant (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the real problem is that there are so many contributors to the date articles (many who will edit a date article once and move on with no opportunity to learn from mistakes) that it is much more foolproof to get people to copy the – than it is to get them to consistently put in a – rather than a - by a simple stroke of the keyboard. You are correct about all other articles using – but we've got a fixed number of articles with fixed formatting so we can impose this structure without the risk of widespread inconsistency. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd links from calendar templates

Howdy. I've noticed a number of odd red links arising from calendar pages and have traced them back to Template:year3 and Template:month3 templates. I'm posting here to firstly check that the odd red links aren't there for some useful purpose, and secondly to try and find someone (anyone!) willing and able to trawl through these horrible constructions and find their source. The odd red links are perhaps best demonstrated by example:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Topbanana (talkcontribs)

Do the redlinks show up anywhere in the article space? I don't see them in any of the articles that link to the above. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
They are linked from the non-day dashes in the pretty little calendars. Click below 'Mo', 'Tu' and sich on this calendar. - TB (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC) User:HandigeHarry/Month3
When I click Mo, I get Monday and I don't see any relevant redlinks on that article. Am I missing something? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Just below the 'Mo' (and above the '2') is a little red dash. Thats what's linked as far as I can tell. - TB (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Now I see the issue. I don't see any red dashes, but I can mouseuover and see the links. I'll look at it. No promises, though. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember why I don't like that template. It is unnecessarily complex and there are suitable replacements for it. The issue that you've pointed out is relatively harmless, but if you want it fixed, it would probably be better to make the request at Template talk:Month3. I'd rather see the template replaced with {{CalendarCustom}}. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and corrected the template to suppress these invisible links to nonsensical dates. Net result; 20000 fewer red links over the en wikipedia and a headache ;) - TB (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Women's Equality Day, August 26

shoulder height portrait wearing a hat
photo of the joint resolution

Greetings. I wonder if you take requests? August 26 is the anniversary of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which permanently gave women the right to vote. Bella Abzug initiated and every president since declared this day Women's Equality Day. We do have a nice photo of Ms. Abzug. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The observance is already listed on August 26. What are you proposing? And who is "we"? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"We" means Wikimedia. I propose only to consider that you use Ms. Abzug's photo. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The image alone does not sufficiently signify Women's Equality Day to an uninformed reader. Use of an image in a Day of the Year article should generally help to illustrate an event in a way that would be recognizable to an uninformed reader. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, you're right. Attaching a photo of the amendment just in case. I propose it instead. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that we're talking about an image that more directly signifies an event that is listed on the page, the question of adding value to the page comes up. As you can see, there are very few images on the date pages. I'm personally not a fan of images on the date pages because it raises one event to particular prominence over all the others and cultural bias gets brought up. Then we end up with conflicts as to which events warrant images, how many is too much, etc. It's part of the reason why we've added Commons links to all of the pages. I would not revert the addition of the image, but I wouldn't be surprised if others do. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the potential for conflicts and don't plan to add the image anywhere. But if on this day there turns out to be room for it, then you have a request. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1 August

Recently an editor has been removing entries because the person concerned, although having a wikipedia article here, does not have an article in another language. The reason given is that they are deemed "non-notable" for this reason.

Now, no article = no entry, but where does it say that an entry must have an article in two languages before they qualify for an entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs)

It would appear that the editor is confusing the date articles with the guideline that governs year articles WP:RY. But he is not wrong, just using the wrong reason. WP:DOY states that "being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wikicalendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wikicalendar articles". I understand that this needs to be clarified, but this would be the justification for removing such entries. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ICD-10 transition

here, I added to October 1,

  • 2013 – Use of ICD-10 coding replaces ICD-9 in most health care transactions in the United States.

This was reverted with the comment, "Removed future event (which will not be of global interest even if it happens)." I disagree, but rather than get into an edit war, I'm coming here for guidance. The Style section of this page has no prohibition on future events, nor a requirement that events have global interest; I daresay that this transition will have a lot more impact than the death of a former minor athlete or artist--my best guess is that it will have about $1 billion of direct impact and several more indirectly. (reverter notified) Matchups 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't add future events. You will find this mentioned in WP:DOY. These pages list historical events of importance that have already occurred and been proven significant. Anything in the future is speculation because dates and events can change. Additionally, this event appears to have little global significance and shouldn't be included anyway. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As stated by Mufka, future events are not included in the date pages because they deal with history. You may be right that there are birth/death entries listed that are of little or no local let alone global significance, please feel free to remove them using an appropriate edit summary. As to a change in US healthcare I doubt it will be much remarked upon among the 7 billion non US citizens estimated to be on the planet in 2013, and 12 months later not at all. --Drappel (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I found the point about future events as referenced by User:Mufka. Should that page also be referenced from this Project page, so other editors don't get the mistaken impression (as I did) this page it contains the full list of rules? But I reserve the right to reopen the discussion about the notability of the event once it actually happens; who knows what perspectives will be at that time. Matchups 01:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this looking fairly noticable to me on the WikiProject_Days_of_the_year page where you had not seen the link. Or was it the line in the opening paragraph saying "all 366 historical anniversary pages" that failed to make it clear that past events were the purpose of the page. You could without foreseeable dispute put the entry here 2010#Predicted_and_scheduled_events or 2010_in_the_United_States see 2009 in the United States for an idea of the format expected there. --Drappel (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I see it now in the header, but I didn't read the header. I was looking for a style guide and I read the style guide, linked above under the wise-guy comment "looking fairly noticeable to me." However, neither my eye nor Firefox is able to find a mention there of either the ban on future dates nor the requirement of global notability. Can you please quote the exact sentences in the style guide on the project page with those rules? Matchups 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
All of the relevant guidelines are in WP:DOY which is linked in the first line of the style section of WP:DAYS. The mention about future events is under the section "What is not notable or not considered an Event". -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 09:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Got it, thanks.

Outdent with slight change of topic for readability
So is there any movement to promote the proposed policy to a real policy? Matchups 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipolicy on dates?

I just posted a question I've been wondering about at Talk:List of historical anniversaries#Wikipolicy on historical dates? before finally coming across this page, where it would seem to more appropriately belong.
I think my concern is addressed here (ie., " per WP:DOY..."), and there does seem to be a formal policy in place after all.
That policy does not, however, seem to be very consistently implemented.
In particular: would someone from this wikiproject please take a moment to weigh in on this debate of the issue, re. "October 13"?
Thanks! --Wikiscient 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to be lighthearted on the Templar talk page, but this is getting kind of crazy. There is no issue. All the examples you gave (or could give) are the result of the Julian and Gregorian calendars being used simultaneously. In 1307 there was no Gregorian calendar, therefore there is no issue - the dates are whatever dates they used at the time. October 13 was a Friday in 1307. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. That's fine.
There is an issue, though, but it would be crazy to try to "implement" it.
The present policy is perhaps a bit misleading, then:
  • "Whenever possible, new style dates should be used for entries. Duplicate entries on corresponding old style dates should be removed."
There should probably also be some explicit policy statement to the effect that "pre-Gregorian dates in European History should be given in the old style," just to avoid any potential confusion about it.
Wikiscient 11:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
When that statement was added it was because some entries were showing up on two pages. Whenever some entry (usually a birth or death) had both dates listed in its article, it seemed reasonable that the new style date should be used. It really came down to just picking one and new style was the choice. It seemed likely that editors wouldn't be converting dates prior to 1752 to new style and anything after that could be listed as the new style date if the date was listed in the linked article. The language could be changed to say that the date that is considered the primary date in the linked article should be used. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Then we should also clarify that Old Style only applies to Britain from 1582 to 1752 and Russia until 1918 and wherever else the Julian calendar was/is used at the same time. Prior to 1582 there is no Old Style. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

'Lunar Calendar' Days (previously Hindu festivals)

Some Hindu festivals are mapped to the regular calendar. This is not valid as these festivals follow the Lunar Year/Months and not the Solar calendar. Any suggestions for improvements? (Particularly where Dasara is linked to this date. In fact it was more then a month ago this year...)

-Varun (17th October 2009 20:07 GMT+5:30)

If they do not occur on the same date each year, they can't be listed in the date articles. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
With this said, should we remove all festivals that don't follow Solar calendar and are mapped to Lunar calendar? If so request to regular contributers to start on this one...(Including but not limited to... Ramzan, Diwali, Dashara/Dasara and many others?) (Changed the title for this discussion to 'Lunar Calendar' Days)
-Varun (13 December 2009 2:30 GMT+5:30)


I had a query and was advised to bring it here:
All the Day pages start:
"x is the nth day of the year in the Gregorian calendar."
This is misleading; all entries up to 1582 generally (and up to 1752 in Britain and the Americas) would be dates in the Julian calendar
I suggest it needs fixing; How about a phrase like
"All entries prior to 1582 are in the Julian calendar. Entries after 1582 are Gregorian, unless otherwise stated".
It might also be worth marking dates between 1582 and 1752 as Gregorian, or (NS); or as Julian, or (OS). Moonraker12 (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I've done December 31 as an example (though I've not been able to do anything with the header). Moonraker12 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The current header is factual. As far as noting whether a date is in the Julian or Gregorian I think the differentiation should be made in the target articles. Every item in the date pages must link to a supporting article, so we don't need the administrative overhead of going through every entry and checking it and adding NS or OS to it. I still believe that the January 1 article should list items that occurred on the relative date January 1. It doesn't matter whether it was in the Julian or Gregorian calendar. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is factual in the sense that 1 January is a date in the Gregorian calendar, but it isn’t the whole truth, is it? 1 January is also a date in the Julian calendar. And all the entries on the 1 January page before 1582 (except 153BC, if we are being precise) are Julian dates. Plus, the 1 January 1651 when Charles II was crowned was (I suspect) a Julian date, not a Gregorian one, so the entry is confusing at best, and wrong, at worst.
Also, I’m not suggesting annotating all the dates, just the ones where this applies (ie Engish and American dates between 1582 and 1752, mostly) which is one or two per page.
And I’m not asking you to do it, I’m asking for an agreement so I can do it. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the Julian calendar is relevant to most readers of the page. They likely want to see events that happened on "the date called January 1". So the header is appropriate for the pages. In this particular context, I don't think the added effort to go through and note every instance of an OS date is worth it. This is evidenced by the simple fact that only one editor in at least the last 3 years has brought it up. I understand that you are willing to do the work, but the style of a project can't be supported by one editor. Editors adding new entries, very likely will not make the distinction and then we have inconsistency. Implementing this wouldn't be that simple for the average editor. There are two tasks involved: first is updating the subject article to list the relevant OS date (this includes confirming that a particular date was actually used for the event). Second is updating the date article and possibly moving entries from one article to another (they can't be in both places). One person could take the time to do it, but it ends up introducing a lot of unnecessary overhead. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough; I don’t want to get into a fight over the chance to do a shed-load of work.
But if we aren’t going to add anything about it we need to remove the phrase “in the Gregorian calendar” from the header; it is misleading as it is, not to mention being economical with ihe truth. And the header makes complete sense without it. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rearranging of sections

The first section in all day pages is now Events, but this seems to be basically a collection of trivia.

The fact that the Cape Girardeau meteorite fell on August 14, 1846 is not particularly relevant to the day August 14 unless people note the anniversary in some way. Now, I have no problem with having a list of trivia of what events happened on each day, but I think that these should be secondary to the reasons that that date is notable. That is to say, the meteorite fall would be quite relevant to a August 14, 1846 article (if it existed), but not nearly as relevant to the August 14 article. Alternatively, if scientists discovered that August 14 is the most common day for meteorites to fall (unlikely) then that would be quite relevant to that article. Likewise, if August 14 was declared "Cape Girardeau meteorite day" and celebrated ever year, that would be quite relevant to the August 14 article. Generally, things like holidays which are celebrated on a date every year or anniversaries are much more relevant to the day of the year.

Therefore I suggest the primary focus of every day of the year page be things which are mostly related to that date independent of year and the secondary focus, things which are mostly related to that date in a specific year.

Most notably, this would place Holidays and observances first.

What do you guys think? — sligocki (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This was brought up at least once before and I think the argument is valid that readers come to the date pages to see what happened on a particular date, not what holidays happen to occur on the date. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There wasn't really much discussion there. Do you have any particular reason to think that readers come to these pages more interested in historical trivia than recurrent holidays? I think that maybe it is just the editors who have joined this project who are more interested in the events. Also, most of these pages don't have very long holiday sections, so it would be easy to get past, unlike the extremely long events, births and deaths sections. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that generally viewers would be looking to the date pages for things that they don't know. It would be more likely that they know holidays that occur on a given date, at least the ones that they care about. The Holidays sections are varied in length and some pages have almost nothing. The Events sections should contain things that are interesting to the readers. The Holidays sections are pretty black and white and don't contain anything all that thought provoking. I don't think there is a compelling reason to make a change to the order. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Under this logic, Adolf Hitler should begin with: "Hitler has variously been said to have had irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, Parkinson's disease, syphilis, Asperger syndrome and a strongly suggested addiction to methamphetamine." because everybody already knows that he is the Austrian-born leader of the Nazi party? Certainly, the trivia about Hitlers health would be more "provoking"? All I want is for these articles to be treated more like real Wikipedia articles, why are they treated so differently? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
These aren't really articles, they're just lists. And I'm just saying that there is no compelling reason to change the section order. You could try to get some more input from WP:VP if you feel strongly about it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian Feast Days inconsistency

I notice this varied format for the Christian feast days in the Holidays and observances section of the days of the year:

1. Put the title 'Roman Catholic Feast Days' or 'Orthodox Feast Days' or 'Christian Feast Days' on top, and put a sub lists of the saints below (e.g. November 3)

2. Put a link to another article, usually Orthodox saints does this (e.g. January 13)

3. Put the entire feast day of the saints there (e.g. July 20)

4. put a 'R.C. Saints -' in front of the saints (e.g. December 19)

5. put a 'Roman Catholic Church -' in front of the saints (e.g. December 17)

6. put 'Feast day of' in front of the saints (e.g. December 1)

I think a default template must be made, so that it looked more organized --Rochelimit (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good idea, but I don't know how it would be implemented and maintained. There is an abandoned attempt at something like this at Christian feasts on January 1 but no attempt was ever made to get community support to continue work on it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I can try to maintain it, but we need to decide a default template for the 'Holiday and observances' first... because everything is a mess, not just the Christian feast day, but also the rest of the day. If somebody more experienced in creating default template can decide such a template, that would be very helpful.
I say we should follow the format of e.g. December 25, which is:
{the name of the day} – {country or group of people that celebrates it}.
So in that case I prefer this kind of formatting:
say, it is January 17, there are both Roman Catholic saints and Orthodox link there then it should be.. and some days that are not very organized according to our "current" defualt template

instead of (the current):

any input? --Rochelimit (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support any consistent format and I think it's a good idea. Implementation might be a chore. I will say that I'm not a fan of a transcluded page because that would turn into a mess. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by transcluded page? and also can you help me create a template for this in changes, I'm not very experienced with this, and it seems that you're the only one who is still very active in this?
I also don't know which page is appropriate for the template, the WT:DOY or the WT:Days, it seems that the previous one is more appropriate for templates.. not very sure about this. --Rochelimit (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Transcluding basically means having one page show up on another as though it were part of the page. We can't have a single template for this. I think we can just have a guideline. We don't want to create 366 new pages for this, which is what would happen if we used a template. The real problem with that is that some people would edit the template (very few) and most people would just edit the date page and continue making a mess. It is likely that the mess would continue even after cleanup and it would require ongoing maintenance to keep it clean. The format of the rest of the page is pretty easy to keep clean, it's a very simple layout. The H&O section, because we can't be sure that there would be a Christian Feast on every date, for example, is harder to keep clean. We can just create a best case guideline and then hope for the best. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No of course not (transcluding thing), We will just provide a link to the page, e.g. Orthodox Saint Feast Days (check December 18, from there, Orthodox church have a link to a 'stubbish' article December_18_(Eastern_Orthodox_liturgics)).
Yep I agree, guideline or templates, anything that can be a reference for future users to edit the H&O section (actually I don't really know the differences between guideline and template). Can you do that please?
Yes it requires ongoing maintenance, for now I'm ok with that as I'm in the middle of a project that forced me to check the H&O section every single day, and that's when I came up with the idea that the H&O need some cleanup. I was thinking of changing the word organization because it's kinda messy, but apparently there are no default template for that. It is not really important actually, but ya I feel like I have to clean things up, don't know why.
btw, actually there is a Christian Feast Day on every date... it is that consistent, even February 29 has a feast day --Rochelimit (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that it's probably better to separatae "Christian Feast Day" with the rest of the celebration, but I will get back into this after I finished reorganizing the whole days. --Rochelimit (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Small changes to day-of-the-year articles

Ndashes Earlier today, I edited November 18, per WP:DASH. This included including a non-breaking space ( ) before ndashes and replacing the text "–" with the actual ndash character (). Per a post to my talk from User:Winston365, I have proceeded to amend all such articles. It seems fair to give a heads-up. If you need to respond to me, you should probably do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This was all due to a misunderstanding that has been worked out. Sorry about that. I'll go through and fix the damage using AWB if there isn't a push to make these kind of changes. Winston365 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The alignment of the dashes now don't line up. Why are these changes being made? Jared Preston (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do that. If you want to suggest a blanket change to 366 articles, please get consensus on it. Or at least ask for background as to why they are they way they are. I can't reply again for about 12 hours, so I hope you'll let me reply to any concerns that you have. On the bright side, thank you for only getting to J. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus There already is consensus for WP:DASH and now it's just being applied to a certain subset of articles. I have no idea what could be less controversial than replacing HTML elements with the character itself and changing a space to a non-breaking space. Honestly, if I have to post to talk to get consensus on that, what can I ever be bold about? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 15:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that the HTML code could and probably should be changed to the character itself, did you look at the articles after applying your changes Justin? The dashes were all over the shop. Jared Preston (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem, but you should preview your edit first. In the edit box it looks neat, but when you preview it, it's messy! --Rochelimit (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The real problem seems to be the non-breaking spaces placed after the spaces with the non-linked years. There needs to be a fix for this. I don't know if some kind of box would present the lists any better though... Jared Preston (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict on this but it had been sitting unsubmitted for about two hours. I understand where you're coming from. In fact, I was skeptical when the format of the date articles was changed back in early 2009. But after dealing with it, the reasoning is sound. The problem is that the date articles are heavily edited by passing editors that do not understand the difference between - and – and don't know how to make a –. In order to keep the date articles consistent, it is easier to use the current format. This does two things. First, it makes the page consistent and all of the dashes are correct. Second, the code view is organized and readable so that when new entries are added, it is easy to see how they should be entered. I understand that WP:DASH exists, but this is a rare case where I would invoke WP:IAR. Swayback Maru Mufka's alternate account (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This is exactly what my concern with this was. Currently it is very rare for someone to use a - instead of an –. I suspect if we switched to using – instead it would become very common, probably a daily occurrence. Winston365 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep. If we don't employ a box or table in the lists, then it is probably the best thing to keep the status quo. Jared Preston (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Holiday and observances reorganization - finished

Now that this is finished, I have to maintain, recheck, and most importantly, make a new guideline for this section. I may have to do WP:3O for certain days like Discordian-Scientology holidays, ancient holidays (which I prefer to include, as the renaissance of certain days like the Asatru holidays and the regular neopagan holidays) and these "solar moving day" that moves, but within a fixed period (unlike the "lunar moving day"). I may also need help while introducing this new guideline, as I have no experience with introducing new guidelines in wiki.--Rochelimit (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to move what you have so far from your talk page to a subpage in your userspace. That will give us somewhere to go over the details, and it can be easily moved into the project space from there. Great work btw, I have been eagerly awaiting this. Winston365 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Automatic blocking of unlinked [or non-existent] pages.

I often see editors add people to these pages referring to unlinked [or non-existent] pages. Would it be possible for a wiser fool like me to automatically block the creation of such entries? It'd prevent a lot of reverting having to take place afterwards. Just an idea... Qwrk (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:PseudoBot used to do that, but it hasn't been running since April. Winston365 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. How do we get it to start working again? Qwrk (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You could drop User:Pseudomonas a note on his talk page and ask him what the status of the bot is. Winston365 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Done Done. Qwrk (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot had some problems after a Mediawiki upgrade. Very minor problems, but he shut it down to fix it. He hasn't had time to get back to it. Perhaps someone else with bot experience could take it over. It's a great bot. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

People in Births/Deaths sections with unreferenced dates

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. I have no intention of going through the DOY articles checking each entry for this (at least, not any time soon), but I'm very tempted to start reverting any new additions where the dates of birth/death aren't properly referenced. Any objections? Winston365 (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian Feast Day

In the Holidays and Observances section of each DOY article there is a listing of Christian Feast Days. Note that Feast Day is a redirect to Calendar of Saints. I like the idea of replacing Christian Feast Day with Calendar of Saints on each DOY article. On aesthetic grounds I think it flows a little better, and looks a bit more formal. This came up here and Rochelimit didn't call me crazy, to my surprise ;). This would of course require a change to all 366 DOY articles (I think), so I wanted to bring it up here before anything goes forward. Winston365 (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Christian Feast Day is more clear as to what the following items are (assuming they are actually called feast days). Calendar of Saints is apparently where they would all be found, but that doesn't describe what they are as a heading. While Calendar of Saints is inherently Christian, non-Christians might not know that. I suggest leaving it as-is. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose Christian Feast Day is clearer then Calendar of Saints if you are unfamiliar with feast days. Before I started working on these pages I wasn't familiar with either term, although I suppose I was vaguely aware that they existed. I certainly had no idea there were so many of them. Either way I would have had to click on the link to see what these entries were about (I'll admit despite having read Calendar of Saints many times I'm still not 100% sure I completely understand it). One of the reasons changing the name came to mind is because of the suggestion that some Christian holidays which aren't technically feast days (such as the appearance of apparitions of the Virgin Mary) still belong under the Feast Day section. Changing the name sort of glosses over that minor inconsistency. I suppose it's technically just a cheat though, hiding behind a more obscure term. As far as I can tell the phrases Calendar of Saints and Christian feast days are essentially synonymous. Currently the phrase Christian feast day is used, which I suppose might be more appropriate, as it seems to imply just a single day, which is more or less what we are talking about. I think the argument could be made that the plural terms are more appropriate, but I'm not sure about that. Are multiple entries on the same day separate feast days, or just separate feasts on the same day? I suppose the latter is probably true, in which case the current wording is probably best. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about religion, I'm just making it up as I go. Winston365 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If they're not really "feast days" maybe we need a better term. I don't know the answer to that. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting to think we simply shouldn't put anything but feast days in the feast days section, or we run the risk of it actually being more of a "Christian observances" subsection. We don't subcategorize any other group of holidays like that (as far as I know), and I don't think we want to go down that road. Feast days are a special case, as there are so many of them. Other Christian holidays should be able to stand by themselves just like any other religious observances, and if they seem too minor to get their own entry outside of the Feast Days section they shouldn't be added at all. Winston365 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I encountered several phenomena while keeping these "Christian" observances consistent:
Pro for Christian Feast Day: Since the title 'Christian Feast Day is the most common title before my edit. So I decided to choose this one. I think people know that 'Christian Feast Day' is associated with Saints' birth, as well as the other minor Christian observances.
Contra for Christian Feast Days: two users decided to move "Christian Feast Day" to the bottom list. Apparently they don't like the idea of Christianity being on the top list (alphabetically, the letter C is often on the top, except if there are occasional days like Armed Forces Days and Arbor Days). One decided to make the category its own category by separating this with the rest of the holidays and putting this below. This doesn't really work, because some Christian feast days are secularized (St. Nicholas), so why separate this with the non Christian holidays? This is also the main reason why I keep 'Christian Feast Day' together with the rest of the holidays.
Pro for Calendar of Saints, two users have suggested me to change the name into "Calendar of Saints". Apparently, some user like Calendar of Saints.
Contra for Calendar of Saints: No case, but I have been thinking, for the Contra for Christian Feast Day group, alphabetically, "Calendar of Saints" is not a solution. I think people may associate "Calendar of Saints" with celebrations for Saints only? Actually.. all kind of Virgin Mary observances, including her apparition, her visitation, her etc, is called a "Marian Feast Day", so it is technically a Feast Day.
Pro for Feast Days, I think it is true that "Feast Day" is in fact synonymous with "Christian observances", and even exclusively a Christian name. But I'm not very sure about this.
Contra for Feast Days, I think "Feast Day" is not that notable among those who don't know what Calendar of Saint is. So this may create a misundestanding for people who used a lot of Fiesta or Festa in their holidays, and for Neopagan celebrations also. There are some non-Christian-related holidays used the term "Feast Day" or "Feast of..." (English Feast of Guy Fawkes, Moroccan Feast of the Throne, Neopagan Feast of First Fruit (Lammas), neopagan Feast of Ingathering (Mabon), San Marino Feast of the Militants, Filipino Feast of the Forest, Hawaii Feast of the Holy Sovereigns, Persian Sadeh, etc.)
I think my conclusion for this is... I don't know. I actually prefer this solution: the fact that there is a link to the wiki article "Eastern Orthodox liturgics" in every list of 'Christian Feast Day', I hope there will be one pious Roman Catholic Wiki user that decided to make a complete wiki article for 'Western liturgic Saints' feast days, just like the Eatern Orthodox liturgics. So in the end, there will only be two links: to the Eastern and to the Western Church page (Anglican are more or less Western, Ethiopian more or less Eastern, etc.). Until then, I don't know which title is the best, and I think perhaps it's better to keep it that way. --Rochelimit (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Having something for Western liturgics as exists for Eastern liturgics would be nice, I'd love to be able to reduce this all to two links. It may not be feasible though, judging from the Calendar of Saints template. There seem to be quite a number of different calendars used by different western churches. (I'm not sure western churches is even a useful term, Christianity is probably better split into three main groups: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant).
If pretty much all of these types of Christian holidays are referred to as feast days in some way then I guess they should stay in the feast day section. As for the name of the subsection I think the best option is exactly how we have it now, Christian Feast Day. I think any benefits that might be associated with a change to Calendar of Saints are outweighed by the confusion it might cause. Christian Feast Day is as clear as we are probably gonna be able to get.
btw, the idea that it is unfair that the Christian Feast Day section is often listed first is one of the sillier things I've heard in a while. Two people really came up with that independently? Damned alphabet and its constant POV pushing. It clearly has a bias against Zoroastrianism. Winston365 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

It seems to me like the sections on Holidays and observances should come ahead of the listing of historical events and births/deaths -- the holidays are often still relevant today, so should be higher on the page, while the rest is historical information. -- (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up in the past but I've never seen a compelling reason to make the change. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I prefer having the Events section on top. In some ways the Events section is the most interesting one, in that it is more suited for casual browsing. There are some nice bits of prose in the Events section; verbosity is frowned upon but there can be elegance in brevity. The other three sections for the most part lack even complete sentences. Having tried reversing the order on a few pages I also think just aesthetically it looks better with the Events section on top and the H&O section at the bottom. The H&O sections are relatively short (as few as four entries, although most have more) and putting them at the top of the page tends to look a bit awkward for some reason, like it unbalances the page. Almost all of the images on these pages are also in the Events section, and it looks better to me to have these closer to the top of the page. Also Perhaps I have spent too much time staring at these pages, but for me seeing the H&O section on top looks very strange. Also see the "Biased alphabet conspiracy"(tm) from the thread preceding this one on this page for another reason (silly as it may be) not to move the H&O section up. Winston365 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)