Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 4

message: I've got an authoritative source which dates publication of Isaac Newton's Principia as 5 July, 1687 in the Julian calendar. This project page seems to imply i should convert that to 15 July in the Gregorian calendar, move the event from the 5 July page to the 15 July page, and link to 15 July in the various articles which mention publication of Principia. The MOS, however, seems to suggest that i should not convert the date but leave as 5 July and link as such. Are all the events listed on day of the year pages meant to be listed as when they occured under the Gregorian calendar or are they a mix of Gregorian and Julian calendar dates?EricR 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with Julian calendar dates 

message: At the request of Badbilltucker, I created a membership list on the project page.  I've compiled the following list of contributors to this Talk page, and if I have time, I'll leave y'all a message.  In the meantime, you can either add yourself, or strike out your name. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project membership 

message: It seems to me that there are fundamentally two potential users for these date pages.  The wikipedia portal managers, who will use them for selecting data to be included in the portals, and someone who is just interested in the day in general.  Given that the portal managers will have an interest in these matters, I propose that we potentially either break down the pages to include all those who have relevant anniversaries on that date and somehow mark those who are counted as being more important, or separate out those which are counted as being more important.  I would think maybe one of the criteria for differentiation would be how important any of the existing wikipedia projects consider the given subject.  If, for instance, any portals or projects covering the same subject matter as portals counts the subject as being of either "top" or "high" importance, then I believe that they can reasonably be included on the date listing either on the top or with an asterisk, bolded name, or whatever.  This will make it substantially easier for portal managers to update their portals.  Perhaps, in some circumstances, we might even "mark" those of the highest level of importance for the given period (week, perhaps) between each update of a given portal.  Anyway, I'd more than welcome any responses.  Badbilltucker2 19:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, Badbill.  The idea doesn't sound bad, but I tend to think that putting that idea into practice would introduce subjectivity to the pages more than historical objectivity.  You're probably aware of the "Selected Anniversaries" derived from events on each date which is what appears on the main page on a given date (and also on each date's talk page).  I think the editors who have worked on that have done a good job in selecting events of global pertinence from a variety of fields (i.e. world news, major happenings in a country, even sports/entertainment here and there).   Here the "most important" events are bolded for emphasis, but on the page itself, these events are not bolded.  A system that involved bolding events on date pages or sectioning them out by "Related to (such country/project)" or "Most Important" or "Entertainment/Art/Politics/etc." would 1) require a lot of work, 2) be subjective, and 3) make the pages longer and bulkier.   Let's see what others have to say.  Fabricationary 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All points well taken and which I can agree with.  However, I do note the rather huge number of portals out there, beyond simply the main one.  Would anyone else object to putting in a greater number of events related to a particular date so that more portals would be able to find things relevant to their specific subject on the date pages?  Badbilltucker 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for breakdown of days 

message: I'd like to bring your attention to Wikipedia talk:Jewish dates. Please add your thoughts to that page. Thanks!—msh210℠ 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish dates 

message: I know a reliable website, http://www.brownielocks.com/month2.html, and there may be more, that includes the lesser-known holidays such as World Egg Day (October 13), National Gum Drop Day (February 15), and Interntional Mountain Day (December 11).  Although they may seem non-notable, people looking for information about their birthday would find it useful and interesting.  Due to many international users, we might want to dramatically cut down the holidays actually used.  What do you think?  Reywas92Talk 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other holidays 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: A while ago I noticed that someone was deleting the images from all of the date pages.  After it went on for a while, I decided to revert it, mainly because the apparently indiscriminate nature of the deletions concerned me.  Do we have any guidelines for what images (if any) are appropriate on those pages?  My gut feeling would be that, while we don't need an image on every page, there are some iconic dates for which an image is definitely called for, including September 11 and November 22.  Any thoughts? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 150px images go pretty well with list-type articles.  I'm thinking specifically of List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois.  The image should be very specific to the event in question and not something generic.  For example, the first man on the moon event should show an image of Armstrong's first steps and not the NASA logo.  The user in question claimed that showing images of some events and not others demonstrated favoritism.  However, I disagree with that notion as a basis for banning all images entirely.  Images make Wikipedia's articles far more useful and interesting.  Rklawton 05:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I never suggested that some events listed on a date article shouldn't have images.  Next, we make choices in date articles all the time.  For example, not all events that occur on a particular date are notable enough for mention in a date article.  Choices are a fact of life, and the fact that we must choose does not mean we must choose nothing at all.  A few event images make date articles look nicer, and that's sufficient.  Rklawton 00:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nicer" is a matter of taste, and by thinking that no images make the date articles look nicer, that is sufficient by your argument. Also, I assume we agree that "not all events should have an image", which is an equivalent statement to "some event(s) should not have an image". However, you make a good point about choosing which events make it on the list. But once they're on, the list is egalitarian. Readers have mentioned that they mostly use the date pages to look up other events that happened on their birthday, or some other kind of anniversary. Probably the second most likely reason is for research. In both cases, they are probably aware of the most famous events on that day, and are rather looking for events they are unaware of.69.137.129.2 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's OK that we are egalitarian in our selection of events, but after that we can't be egalitarian?  The "all events must have images – or we're biased" argument just doesn't fly.  At any rate, what I had in mind when I wrote about some events would not have images was simply that some events have no images available.  Nothing else you've written serves to indicate that date articles should have no images whatsoever.  The articles will look nicer, regardless of a reader's motivation for visiting the page.  And I see no valid reason for banning images in these articles.  You've been editing here for perhaps a week.  I suggest you hang around a bit and see how things are done.  Rklawton 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to look up egalitarian, as your definition is backwards. Also, I'm not saying all events should have images, in fact quite the opposite. I've already addressed your point about articles looking "nicer", and I think I refuted it quite well. This discussion is in a stale mate until you recognize (understand?) my point and address it. And while I honestly appreciate your willingness to help what you consider new users (really, that's good stuff!), I have been using and editing wikipedia since 2003, I just have a new IP now.69.137.129.2 18:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in favour of event images.. as noted below, the German wikipedia has images for their days, and they seem to compliment the lists articles nicely. 131.111.24.187 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images, revisited 

message: I think there should be some more discussion on the criteria for listing in Births and Deaths, as the two years old discussion above (here) didn't lead anywhere. As such new users are unaware what to include or they are making their own rules as there are currently no recommendations or guidelines for this. So I suggest developing some basic criteria/rules/recommendations and adding them to the wikiproject page. The text by Kingturtle got some support then and could be used as a starting point.
Quote from the old discussion (Kingturtle 15 Feb 2005): 
In regards to births and deaths, I feel that we should be discriminating in our choices - that the idea is to list the more/most significant names on a day-article, not all possible names, and not even moderately significant names. Recent deaths can be used for a more extensive list, and the more historically important names should be placed on the day-articles. IMHO, an article about a particular day is not meant to be a complete compendium or complete list. It is a summary of the most and more important events of that day.
Best, feydey 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  Such a note already exists as an in-line note within the date articles following both the births and the deaths sections.  Rklawton 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with that would be the word "legitimate."  Do you think, instead of legitimate, "at least two other distinct Wikipedia articles" would work? Fabricationary 17:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two?  Assuming one article is the individual's biography, what would be in the other article?  I suggest this wording:  Individuals listed under births/deaths must have their own biographical article in Wikipedia.  Rklawton 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say legimate has the meaning that the article is not a prod or CSD. feydey 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the criteria that we currently have - "do not add anyone without a Wikipedia article to the Wikicalender pages."  If we wanted to add additional criteria to prevent the listing of some people with biographical articles that some editors deem insignificant, such as little-known actors/wrestlers, etc., we could establish the criteria that they not only have their own biographical article but that their biographical article is linked to by a second independent article (other than that Wikicalendar page, a user's page or talk page, or an image page).  For example, if Joe Schmoe is a professional baseball player, he will not only have his own biographical article, but that biographical article will be linked to by perhaps a page containing the current roster of the team.  Along the same lines, little-known actress Janey Blainey, who is said to have "appeared in a lot of TV commercials," will have a biographical article that is not linked to by any other Wikipedia article and can be removed from the date page.  This might weed out a few more articles than those that would normally be nominated for deletion via XFDs.  Fabricationary 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, maybe the second article should also exclude lists.  Take for example, Anthony Ocaña (listed on March 7, whose  biographical article only links to a date, a year, and two lists.  ). Fabricationary 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm jumping into this late, but Fabricationary's comment exemplifies whatlinkshere.  Why can't the number of inbound links to an article be used as an additional requirement (beyond simply notable enough to have a Wikipedia article)?   -- Robocoder (t|c) 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the proper count then?  I'd say it adds a needless complication - especially as the number of inbound links can change up or down from day to day.  Rklawton 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Criteria for listing in Births and Deaths