Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/dates

message: Here's part of why I preferred the  Tony/Gimmetrow division of article relevant to date or date relevant to article:
1.  The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, or it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary). 
::a. Anniversaries of the founding of a company may be considered, but anniversaries of product launches are generally not.
2.  The article is highly relevant to the date when:
::a. the article fits a theme for the day, recognizable to a significant proportion of the English Wikipedia readership; or
::b. a theme may be a major multinational event or a well-known holiday.
Here's the problem — we also have:  The suggested date must appear in the main body of the proposed article. 
Note that the above requirement (date appearing in main body) fits for number one, but not for number two, and should be part of number one only.  For example, Raul might want to feature an article about turkeys, pumpkins, Macy's, parades, football games, or acorns on Thanksgiving Day, and those articles would not have to mention the date of Thanksgiving.  Or, he might want to feature Baby Gender Mentor on Mother's Day, which doesn't mention the date of Mother's Day.  So, the "date in the article" requirement should only be part of number one; the Knights Templar example fits into number one.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony/Gimmetrow version 

message: A date may be put forward for consideration when either it is highly relevant to the article, or the article is highly relevant to the date. 
1.  The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary). 
:a. Anniversaries of the founding of a company may be considered, but anniversaries of product launches are generally not.
:b. The suggested date must appear in the main body of the proposed article.
2.  The article is highly relevant to the date when:
:a. the article fits a theme for the day, recognizable to a significant proportion of the English Wikipedia readership; or
:b. a theme may be a major multinational event or a well-known holiday.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a little clearer than the version I changed, and I don't find it as confusing as the older version. It looks fine, so long as it's or rather than and between points 1 and 2. I would propose changing "or it is a significant anniversary" to "especially if it is a significant anniversary" or "such as a significant anniversary", though. An Nth anniversary is just a special case of "a significant date to the subject of the article". — Brian (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The or is in the preceding sentence.  I made your suggested change above; should I go ahead and add this?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So, I propose:

message: What I think this will need is a time limit on how far in advance the requested date can be.
Possibly something like a "requests are currently only considered for next month ie June request can only be listed in May". Then if in the future a group is formed to consider the request they are able to meet(on irc or something) towards the end of the month and forward only the approved date requests on to Raul. Gnangarra 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never been on IRC and I'm not ever planning on going there :-)  I don't see a problem with someone getting in the queue well in advance.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this pages is to decide whether a date request in worthy in the community opinion to be endorsed, how can we make a fair assessment of what the community opinion will be in 6 months.  By keeping it current the community is better able to access what they consider relevant. As for the IRC discussion that is a future thinking hypothesis, so why throw away a suggestion under those conditions. Gnangarra 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mean.  But a month seems too limiting; how about if we go out three months?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second thoughts on that; some editors might write an article in June, specifically hoping it would be considered for Christmas, as an example.  The community job is only to decide if it's eligible; Raul chooses the article ultimately, so I'm not sure we have to worry about whether the article would still be appropriate six months from now.  We're only saying it's eligible; Raul is choosing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. No time limits, please. — Brian (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  time limiting