Talk:Blue Monday (date)

message: I've had to make some edits to this article. Any basic search of the author of this supposed study does not produce any evidence he is a credible source. ecven the institution he used to work for is trying to distance itself from him, and have stated he was a part tinme tutor rather than a scientist as he likes to describe himself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/dec/16/badscience.uknews  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.24.189 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had to make some edits to the article in response, so that it actually talks about the subject, rather than being a WP:COATRACK against Mr Arnell. MorganaFiolett (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think the wikipedia style guide says to avoid using "claims" as a word for attributing a quote, since it unduly biases the reader against the quoted person. 76.118.217.245 (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "claims" 

message: I added the claimed formula, and it was removed as not making sense. This is not a mistake (on our part at least); see Ben Goldacre's quote in the article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula 

message: I have left the following note on the User talk:C3o page:
=== Blue Monday (date) nonsense ===
Why are you protecting this abuse of wikipedia? Do you yourself have a monetary interest in this article? Then you should not get involved, it'd be unethical. Otherwise read the offensive article and either remove it or leave it in the honest form, as an explicit advertisement. Wikipedia should not promote dishonesty.
I hope that user:C3o will come to senses or someone will stop C3o's cover up action. Wlod (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blue Monday" entry is a commercial advertisement and should be removed or explicitly presented as such 

message: Why are you protecting this abuse of wikipedia? Do you yourself have a monetary interest in this article? Then you should not get involved, it'd be unethical. Otherwise read the offensive article and either remove it or leave it in the honest form, as an explicit advertisement. Wikipedia should not promote dishonesty.
I hope that user:C3o will come to senses or someone will stop C3o's cover up action. Wlod (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blue Monday (date)]] nonsense 

message: What's the source for this and who's doing the alleging? As far as I was aware, the date falls when Cliff Arnall decides it's time to get into the papers again. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The date allegedly falls on the [Monday of the last week/ third Monday/etc.] of January 

message: As someone previously unfamiliar with this term until today, this article really doesn't establish the date's notability. This should be improved upon. nlapierre 16:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: I'm proposing to undo the deletion notice unless someone can come up with a good reason to delete. The reason given to propose deletion, to quote: "Bullshit article about a bullshit piece of PR. Pathetic" is in my mind enough to undo the notice immediately. This comment does not even conform to Wikipedia standards of language.
The article does need some revision and restructuring and I will post my ideas soon. Also Dr Ben Goldacre has written another newspaper item yesterday which is relevant. Socialogically, I beleive the creation of mainly press inspired myths is an important part of our history.
keoka 14:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick question here - which "Wiki rules" (I presume you mean Wikipedia policy) do you refer to? I can't immediately think of any reason why we shouldn't explicitly name the companies involved in creating this. --David Edgar (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: The last full week of January, 2010, you will find to be January 25th, not January 18th as stated in the article. 
24 January in 2005,
23 January in 2006, 
22 January in 2007, 
21 January in 2008, 
19 January in 2009,
25 January in 2010 (the 18 January didn't fall on the Monday of the last full week of January - you will find that was 25 January), 
24 January in 2011,
23 January in 2012,
21 January in 2013,
20 January in 2014
Could the confusion year mentioned in the article of 2011, be possibly a typing mistake or error by the writer?
There should be no confusion at all.
Butdavid (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date for 2010 

message: Substituted at 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I don't think labelling this article as a date is helpful, and is contributing to the perceived lack of notability. This is simply an ad campaign, not notable enough to be any observed date.
If we replace "date" from the title with "ad campaign", I think it would end confusion about the notability.
In addition, this shouldn't be a date as there is no exact or calculable date associated with the campaign.
Willtheoct (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming/Notability

message: The french article about blue monday says the dates are always between the 15th and 21st of january. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Monday_(jour) 
I don't know if this information should be added to this article tho. Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date