Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 5

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The July 21 article has an item for the release of HP7. It seems pretty clear to me that this will be notable on a global scale and for years to come (at least 'til the fuss about the 7th movie dies down, and it is almost certain that there will be a 7th movie). Maybe the exact date of the release won't be important in a few years, but it will be this year.
This makes me wonder why all future events and all events pertaining to books, etc. are considered non-notable. Brian Jason Drake 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, we don't post most entertainment evens or any future events.  Rklawton 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gathered that. I still don't understand why. Brian Jason Drake 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider what would happen if we did.  Rklawton 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would happen? Clearly we should not post most entertainment events, but there seems to be clear evidence (best-seller list, movie revenues) that this is a very significant one. Why does it matter if it's in the future? Brian Jason Drake 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many books are currently on the best seller list?  How many rotate through that list each year?  Answer:  waaaaay too many.  Rklawton 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many books get turned into record-breaking movies? How many books top best-seller lists for weeks (months?) at a time? Brian Jason Drake 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Alot. However, few will have ANY cultural impact. HP7 on the other hand, will be significant event for millions of people, being that it is symbolic of the end of 'childhood' for many people who grew up reading these books. Bigbrisco 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How significant is The Fellowship of the Ring? From the state of the article, not very, at least compared to Harry Potter. I've just removed this (as well as HP7 again) from the July 21 article. Brian Jason Drake 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable? 

message: The July 21 article has one item that can be verified using reliable sources (the HP7 release date). The reference is also given in the HP7 article and no other item in the article has a reference. There appears to be nothing on the project page about references. Brian Jason Drake 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is basically a list, so the source articles should hold the references.  Rklawton 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpret this to mean that no Wikicalendar articles should have a references section.  Anyone disagree?  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: This talk page has a lot of great ideas.  Isn't it about time we moved some of them over to the project page?  Rklawton 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project page

message: I think there should be listed in "Deaths on RANDOM DAY" how the people died. Just short about that. That would save people having to go to the article to see it, what do you guys think about that idea? TheBlazikenMaster 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless the way they died is somehow significant. Brian Jason Drake 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I got an idea. 

message: [moved to User talk:Relentless1234567#Note from new user by Brian Jason Drake 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note from new user 

message: What's with the lack of images? A recent edit adding the first image to July 21 was reverted. Brian Jason Drake 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.. the German wikipedia has loads of images on their days of the year.. why don't we? 131.111.8.98 08:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see also the discussion above. 131.111.24.187 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Just based on recent observations of some DOTY entries that have been added (things such as kids who have articles because they are in some Nickelodeon "pop" group that will last for 6 months) is it about time that we set the bar for having names included higher than simply having an article?  I wouldn't so much say that this is an argument about notability as it is about the quality of the DOTY pages.
Back of the envelope calculation, there are around 9000 articles on living people who's surnames begin with A (I got fed-up counting after that) - total estimate (for living people only) of, what, 50,000-100,000 + ?  365 days a year gives us ~ 200 entries per day for people born from ~ the 30's onwards.  At the moment we look to be, on most days, averaging ~ 50 or so living.  Obviously the fact that we only have 50ish means things are ok, but I thought I should post this comment as I am noticing quite a few entries appearing which are basically junk (Nickelodeon types, as mentioned above).  They have articles (debates about the wikipedia wide notability criterion can be left to another place) and so our current guideline set makes it ok for them to have a DOTY entry - despite the fact that I think it is a useless entry which devalues the DOTY page rather than enhances it.  Is it time we (those of us who patrol DOTY pages on a daily basis) started to raise the bar a bit for entries above and beyond "has an article"? SFC9394 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criterion *greater* than article status? 

message: Was a redlink bot ever made to find redlink additions to the births/deaths sections? I imagine one would still be useful. Soosed 06:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Status 

message: It seems that only certain dates use the Day template to begin their article, while the majority do not (see here). My opinion is that there should be conformity, so, should the Day template be deprecated or the other dates converted to using it? Any thoughts? Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Day]] usage 

message: I just wonder: the project page links to the Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time page as a help to editors for deciding which events are notable and which aren't. But said page opens with the following message: "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest." My question: is the guideline page still "in force" or not? If not, where's the current page? Please help me out here. --Wernher 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t have the answer but am interested in it. I had been thinking of starting a discussion here on the subject of notability, as it refers to the Days of the Year pages and contacting the users who seem to be interested in the Days of the Year pages to ask them to contribute their thoughts.  And have only not done so while I try and put my own thoughts in order before sharper minds than mine run circles around them (but basically I think there are a lot of entries of minor global notability especially in the births section). --Drappel 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the page on notability here tagged as a guideline.  I started a discussion on that page's talk page here.  I hope that some consensus either way can be reached.  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guideline page obsolete? 

message: I've been noticing that many of the Wikicalendar articles have many different types of headings.  For example January 1 has headings Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, By observance, By faith, By Country, By City, Day of the week, References, External Links.  January 2 has Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, Religious Observances, External Links.  January 3 has Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, External Links.  And that's only the first three days of the year.  I'm in favor of limiting the headings to Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, External Links.  This would also conform more closely to the template.   Anyone opposed?  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in headings 

message: Discussion on the topic of adding future events to Wikicalendar articles has come up on August 8.  The best place to continue discussion is here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion began with the addition of the future date of the 2008 Olympics.  This quote from above should help to set the stage for why this is contested. 
The rest of this conversation is worth reading above.
-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future events

message: I'm a new editor, so this may be an already oft-answered question. (And I may be in the wrong place to ask it. If so, apologies.)  My question is this: what is the prefered way for an ordinary editor to deal with a probable non-notable entry? I'm not asking about notability criteria (I've read through those discussions). Nor am I looking to discuss a particular non-notable example (I see plenty of those debates as well). Today I used comment tags to remove likely non-notables from January 4 and August 22. Neither had wikipedia articles. Can I just go ahead and edit such entries out?  Or is there a prefered template marker of some sort?  Or another page to push such things to?  Thanks. --Newbie looking for guidance.  Hult041956 22:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and remove them.  Anything with a redlink can definitely be removed.  Don't be afraid to be  bold.  The worst that will happen is someone will revert it.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should I delete, mark, or nominate non-notable entries? 

message: I'm at WP:3RR on October 3, removing redlinked birth/deaths, non-notable events, and miscellaneous external links to http://video.ivillage.com.  We need to establish whether removal of redlinked birth/deaths is considered "reverting WP:VANDALISM", and not counted in 3RR.  (I only monitor a few dates, but some seem to hit 3RR more often than others.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense generally dictates how the 3RR rule is applied in this case. I strongly believe that no admin would block for reverting vandalism on calendar articles unless it is a pure edit war.  I find that I'm usually reverting several different edits, not just the same thing over and over.  I hope that the iVillage discussion takes place here because this is the best place for it.  It is a new development and is tainted by WP:COI.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pointed the two logged in editors who have added the link to this page, although I started by pointing them at each others pages for a moment.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and 3RR 

message: I would like to suggest that iVillage.com's daily "On This day" video.   I will gladly stop posting, as I am connected to iVillage.com, but would love to see it on wiki.  The information from the video is taken from various, double-checked sources before put into the piece.  I think it's a great source of info, as well as something that is unique from other other references, as it is a video. You can view the latest one by clicking here: http://video.ivillage.com/player/?fid=29619 Patricksandora 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viewers who visit the site are required to watch advertisements before they can watch the video.  That should disqualify it from inclusion.  I'm also of the opinion that the three external links should be reduced to one because there is much duplication of information on all of the links. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding iVillage.com's On This Day to references 

message: Because September 11 was getting rather lengthy, I added subheaders to the events, births, and deaths sections, so that it is easier to read the page or to search it for particular events.  I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of these subheaders, and on the possibility of extending this format to other pages.  --M@rēino 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really didn't see the article as that lengthy, so I reverted.  The sublist for September 11, 2001 deaths seems appropriate, though. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the revert.  Subheadings actually make the article longer and harder to maintain. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year subheaders 

message: If you want to add every day of the year to your watchlist, you can copy and paste everyday from this link instead of taking the time to add everything. - User talk:Calendar2123#Days of year -Calendar2123 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist 

message: Over the last few days, on a handful of unrelated pages (I'll dig up which ones if you'd like me to, the most recent was Lark Voorhies), I've seen something quite aggravating. A date, for example, January 5, was put in article like this:
5 January
Circumventing user-definable preferences for the purpose of favoring one style of date display. It's unnecessary and unproductive. Perhaps "vandalism" has connotations too strong for this activity, but it's something for which we ought to be looking out and correcting. Tromboneguy0186 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine that being very widespread.  I'd like to learn more though.  In the example you cited, it might be helpful just to drop a note to the editor who added those dates (User:Felicity4711) and try to find out why it was done (looks like someone already did). BTW, this might get more traction on the WT:UTM or WP:VP.  This isn't really the place for it.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe this should be considered vandalism