Talk:May 21

message: The final (and tournement) finished in Moscow on May the 22nd (after midnight) so the Man Utd winning third trophy item has been moved to that date (137.108.145.250 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions League 2008 

message: I have removed an event that looked like this
:*1660 In Long Sault, French Garrison commander Adam Dollard-Des-Ormeaux & his remaing caravan meet their demise after a sudden explosion of a lit & hurled powder keg hits a wooden barrier.
It certainly needed some cleanup, and it's notability is perhaps questionable (I'd be OK with it tho). I removed it because I don't think it occurred on May 21, and researching this it seems the exact date of the end of the battle is unknown.  This isn't really surprising as none of the French survived. The best reference I can find that discusses the dates is this one, which states "According to Chaumonot, the battle of the Long Sault was begun on 2 May; according to Radisson and Chaumonot it probably lasted seven days, eight according to Dollier de Casson and ten according to the Relation. If we except the five survivors who fell into the enemy’s hands, Dollard and his companions must have perished between 9 and 12 May 1660". As the date is not known exactly this event doesn't belong on a DOY page, although I suppose it could be added to the 1660 article. Winston365 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Long Sault 

message: C'mon, let 2011 be "End of the World/Judgment Day/666 Satans!!!111!!" on May 21st. Show the world that Wikipedia has a sense of ironic humor (Uncyclopedia doesn't count). The world demands the ability to look up May 21st on Wikipedia, see "Judgment Day" on the screen for 2011, and look at our buddy and go, "Even Wikipedia has it, yes!!" and high-five him. 72.145.217.42 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Levity and WP:IDONTLIKEIT aside, this item has been restored to the events section.  People are coming here expecting to see it and it's been linked to the appropriate article (2011 end times prediction).  Doesn't matter if it's ridiculous or not (it is).  The ad campaign launched by this man and his devotees is receiving significant media attention to meet WP:GNG and is focused entirely around this one date which makes it appropriate for inclusion in this list.--RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, why do you think this page is protected? There is no consensus to add this nonsense. TL565 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's protected from vandalism which is why it's a semi-protection not full protection.--RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't notable because a radio host says its the end of the world. Judging from your name, of course you would think so. People should not be expecting it to be on this page. It is always removed from the 2011 page if added. This page lists factual events, not outrageous predictions. It was protected because people were adding the same thing. TL565 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

text: How is it notable? I predict the world is going to end tomorrow, should we add that in? It has been reverted many times on the 2011 page. The IPs were adding the same thing you added, but that's vandalism? The reason for the protection states "Protected until after "Judgment Day", which means that the date should not be added. TL565 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPs weren't adding the same thing I added.  Their wording stated it as a fact that it will happen.  My wording points to the predication which is far more nuetral and treats it the same way it's being treated in the media.   You seem very very opposed to any coverage of this in Wikipedia.  I agree that the predication is ridiculous but again that doesn't matter.  It meets notability guidelines.  If you disagree, feel free to nominate the article itself for deletion, I dont think you'll be sucessful though.--RadioFan (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Future events do not go on days of the year articles.  These pages are for historical events and until this event is history and is proven to have a worldwide impact, it can't be on this page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TL565, when MSNBC and the Washington Post run stories about your prediction and campaign to spread it, then you may feel very free to add your own page about it. If you'd bother to visit the page link, you would already know the answer to "how is it notable?". That said, I'd have to agree with Mufka. This date page really only lists significant events that have actually happened and the prediction really doesn't make the cut. -- Fyrefly  (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, only few minor articles, but its not like its dominating the news. I'd say it's notable to have its own page about the prediction, but to link it to a  day of the year page is not. TL565 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter if they're expecting to see something. I do it too, but to add it just for the sake of adding a link is not enough. If people really are interested, they will find it eventually. TL565 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: EC - They'll see that this is a page for historical events and be a little disappointed.  The project won't be harmed by this fact.  If there were an article about the subject, I'd consider a hat note if it is determined that a lot of people are hitting this article looking for it.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good suggestion.  Anyone have any objections?--RadioFan (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It couldn't hurt to have it in, considering it's a one off thing and won't come around next year (whether that be the prediction or Judgement Day) and because it's in the news I support the notion that it should go in. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End times prediction date 

message: Traffic on this page has returned to normal. Should the note be removed now? TL565 (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While traffic is not as large as it was, it's still in the 800-hits range, whereas traffic for the May 20 and May 22 dates are in the 400 range. So while this is actually significantly down for all the articles from the same time last year, it does suggest that a large portion of the traffic this page is now getting is due to some specific momentary interest in May 21, which seems likely due to the subject of the hatnote. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove hat note? 

message: The article on Constantine indicates that he is venerated in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and in the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Should this last indication be taken to mean that he is venerated in the "Catholic" Church?  Or should these 3 denominations be listed after his name here? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Constantine 

message: This entry says that DeFoe was imprisoned on the 21st. The link to The DeFoe record, [], states that "Defoe was a natural target, and his pamphleteering and political activities resulted in his arrest and placement in a pillory on 31 July 1703". According to the Defoe article, it was after he served his time in the Pillory that he went to prison. The article states that he served three days in the pillory. Therefore, the date of his imprisonment would be August 3, 1703.
If the Defoe entry is correct, then Defoe could not have been imprisoned on the 21st of may 1703, since he was sentenced later in the year.
Unless more relevant citations are found, I suggest that this entry be moved to the August 3rd page.
MyRandomUserName (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1703 – Daniel Defoe imprisoned on charges of seditious libel. - Possible error in Date 

message: The following people were deleted 21/Aug/16 by  with the explanation “undo insufficiently globally notable entries”:
*1801 – Princess Sophie of Sweden, Swedish princess (d. 1865)
*1806 – Harriet Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, Duchess of Sutherland, English duchess (d. 1806)
*1828 – Rudolf Koller, Swiss painter (d. 1905)
Can anyone please tell me:
#What is the exact criteria for deciding who is considered “sufficiently globally notable”?
#Where was consensus achieved that “insufficiently globally notable entries” should not be mentioned on these pages?
Otherwise, I am tempted to put these (and other) people back into the list. -- -- -- 20:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to have taken note of the requirement for references. Deb (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‎Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages