Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

On this day in Canada

It appears that the existing OTD links for Canada are no longer valid. If it's not just a short server outage, all of those links will need to be removed from the pages. Selection of a replacement should be discussed here. Link-- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the sort of service Sympatico was known for. Hadn't realized it was still a thing (if it is). The CBC is much more reliable. Could that work? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

With a quick look, I don't see a way to link from each date article to its specific OTD page with CBC. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No, each month has one page. It's up to the reader to scroll to the right day. If the old pages were something like our articles (a straight list of daily Canadian events, births and deaths), this isn't quite that. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative link suggested at VRTS ticket # 2016062710026542 is, for example, http://canadachannel.ca/todayincanadianhistory/index.php/June_28 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire site sympatico.ca has been changed to "the look" and with a redirect to the front page. Can this link be removed until a replacement can be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.27.29 (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1 in India

A discussion needing your input. The nearest precedent I could find was DoY in Baseball which didn't the most definitive outcome. Thanks for your attention. Bazj (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Films released

Each date should have a list of Movies that premiered on this date.

Similar concepts would apply to books, video games, cars, and other things released on the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionsdude148 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Format of February 29 page

Given that there is a bit more content to this page, where should the content that falls outside the usual sections go? A lot of it is tacked onto the start of the "Births" section. I think this info should go up in it's own section before the "Events" section. Thoughts? -- Chuq (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Archduke Ernest of Austria

The entry in content under births for the date of July 15 has a listing for Archduke Ernest of Austria. This is incorrect, his true birthday is June 15, 1553. The bio page for Archduke Ernest does have the correct birth date.

Also, in the list of birth dates for June 15, Archduke Ernest of Austria is missing. Gingergoodrich (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. This isn't actually the correct place to address that (that would be the associated Talk: pages for each article, if you wanted to discuss the issue; you also could have just made the change yourself), but I went ahead and made the changes. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

HELP! I'm trying to add, Catherine Of Austria, Archduchess Of Austria, to the Death content of February, 10,1524. However, in my attempt each time I try to add her, the list turn red and tells me there is no article for Catherine of Austria. There is an article and also she's listed in Births for July 24, 1468.I know there's a movement to add more female names in Days of the Year. Please help. Gingergoodrich (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Date error on February 22

On the page for "February 22" you have Frederic Chopin as being born that day, but the wiki article on Chopin says March 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.253.31 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

15th May 1730

this line links to Hugh Walpole the writer, I'm certain it should link to Robert Walpole the politicianCarltwobob (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Robert_Walpole

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. However, this page isn't the best place to raise such issues. In the future, you can make the change yourself or use the talk page associated with the particular article, which would be more appropriate than here. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Day-of-Year births/deaths for people only (again)?

186.31.83.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added an entry to the Deaths section of July 1 for Cecil the lion [1]. I fixed a formatting problem, and the entry was removed by @MB:. (Which is fine, I had doubts about the notability of Cecil's death anyway).

While the page notice says "...only for people..." (and I was originally going to remove the entry on that basis), there are plenty of exceptions, not least Overdose (horse) just a few lines up from the Cecil entry. This has been discussed at here several times, and none of the archived discussions appear to come to a consensus that an occasional notable animal birth/death should be prohibited, or conversely, allowed. OTOH, some have clearly been permitted in practice.

So I'm first trying to figure out what the policy is. If they should not be included in the lists of births and deaths, then a general cleanup effort should me made to eliminate all of those entries in all of the DoY articles (and possibly some of the other calendrical lists as well), or at least move them to the "events" section.

If animals are permissible in the births/deaths sections, a change to the wording of the page notice would be in order. And even if not, a change to the page notice saying "notable animal births and deaths belong in the events section", would probably be a good idea. Rwessel (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't equate people with animals and thought it was implicit births and deaths meant only of people, not animals, trees, volcanoes, or anything else. The wording "...only for people..." further substantiates that. I would agree to a cleanup moving non-humans to "events". MB (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

November 2, 619

"619 - Emperor Gaozu allowed the assassination of a khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate by Eastern Turkic rivals, one of the earliest events in the Tang campaigns against the Western Turks."

This is very dubious and should not be posted on the main page of Wikipedia. Tong Yabghu Qaghan (ruled 618-628) wasn't assassinated in 619 and the source didn't point out which qan (or other guests) was assassinated. The source did NOT at all claim any qaghan was assassinated. --146.111.30.193 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

November 10th

November 10th is going to be the first World Keratoconus Day. what are the requirements to have it added to the November 10 article? k18s (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ndash;... why is this still being used?

With most projects seeming to move away from the archaic – why is this project still using it instead of the simpler "–"? Less coding would seem to be better. I'm asking because I came across a day of the year article and ran it through the usual wikipedia ndash correction filter and got reverted. It just seemed strange since most of the sports projects use a simple "–" to handle things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Update on initiative Missing Medieval Link

My private endeavour is nearing completion. You can read about it here. So far I've updated links up to the year 1600. As you can see in the chart below the result is a dent regarding the 17th century; in section Births and Deaths, 17th century persons are currently underrepresented in the date pages.

That's why I've decided to extend the project until the year 1699 end then call it a day. I expect to add another 500 notable persons to the Births section alone (and even more edits correcting errors/discrepancies).

Future plans

Project 'All Who Are Born Must Die'
I noticed that the number of exact birth dates stated in year pages are catching up and overtaking death dates from the late Middle Ages onwards. The entries in the Births sections outnumber those in the Deaths section greatly, sometimes [by a factor of 5 or more]. I suspect that contributors often omit to add the corresponding date of death after stating a person's date of birth on a year page. (Chart shows outdated numbers):

I will write some software to automatically check for these omitted entries and add them to the Deaths section of the year pages. After that I will insert them into the matching DOY page. In most cases the notability will be not questioned since already an approved entry exists in the Birth section of the corresponding DOY page.

Ongoing activities

• Wikipedian Peter Schellen has been steadily updating and enriching the year pages since 2009. He started from year 250 BC and is now at 930. I'll be monitoring his progress since his additions are a great source for the DOY pages.
• Periodically I will run all the years in the period 100 - 1699 through my application to check for additions and errors.
  

Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"This day is more likely to occur on a ...."

Why is this put in at the introduction? It is completely arbitrary in that the 400 year window defines its distribution. It's therefore up there with numerology and should really be deleted. I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently, but it really annoys me as it is generally useless. Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I had the same reaction, with surprise that there's no discussion in this talk page's archives. The text is produced by a Template:Day that was added to pages in 2007, and modified last Summer; the url in the edit summary, http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/calendar/isocalendar_text4.htm, seems to be gone but there's Dominical letter, which doesn't satisfy me as an explanation. Sparafucil (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar has a leap cycle that is 400 years long. It contains an even number of 7-day weeks. That means it repeats after 400 years, wherever you start (except for feasts like Easter that depend on the nominal phases of the moon which will likely never repeat). Due to the leaps of leap years at the turns of centuries, day-month dates do not have an equal distribution of days of the week, unlike in the 28-year cycle of the Julian calendar.

The source is not gone, by the way. The URL is just missing an underscore before the digit: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/calendar/isocalendar_text_4.htm — Christoph Päper 14:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this addition is stupid and useless as well. Is it really a big deal that out of 400 years a day fell on this day of the week this amount of times especially when they are all close together? I think it should be deleted as well because it is not important information. posty (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone

Are people watching here? I have an important request! Very important! Oh, yes. Very. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Well, at least I know I am watching... –Ammarpad (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

+1. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hi folks. Not to advertise too much, but please keep a bit of an eye out for any Sleepy Beauty sock working recent day articles. I'd be grateful. All the best and many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• OK... –Ammarpad (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for tool regarding DOY-trimming and review

I have a proposal I would like this project to consider.
Since 2016 I've been focussing on improving the DOY- and Year-pages, especially on the pre-1700's entries in the Birth- and Deaths sections. To that end I created an application to help spot & fix errors and generate notable entries that were missing. You can read about it on my user page. As a side effect I noticed that a lot of un(der)referenced and insufficiently notable entries exist in the DOY-pages from the 1500's onwards; many articles are stubs, are un(der)referenced and/or have very little content. These entries do not qualify and should be removed from the DOY-pages.

I realised that with a little added programming it should be possible to identify these births-/deaths entries automatically. This could help cleaning up WP:DAYS articles immensly. I've been thinking about the way to go about it. I'm aware of the ongoing discussions about notability (and verifiability) so I realise that it will be impossible to come up with an algorithm to perfectly spot entries that are do not qualify for WP:DAYS. However, also in light of current discussions, I think that following rule set would identify entries eligible for removal from WP:DAYS with a high probability:

• The size of the article < 5,000 characters
• AND The number of inline citations < 2
• OR the article has been deleted.

I welcome suggestions to better spot unqualified DOY entries. The idea is to generate a table containing a list of entries that meet these conditions.

I would like the project members' thoughts on this. Would you be willing to use the proposed table as a tool for DOY-trimming and review regarding existing Births- and Deaths entries?
Mill 1 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm struggling a bit defining the 'rule set' that will automatically identify existing entries that don't qualify for WP:DAYS. So far I've come up with a number of criteria but I would welcome the project's members suggestions.
To make my question clear I've created a sample spreadsheet showing all DOY Births- en Deaths entries of January (year > 1600). Next table shows several properties of the articles linked to from January 1:

As you can see the table shows properties like page size (in number of characters in the wikitext), number of external links etcetera. From this data it's obvious that a lot of existing entries have no place in WP:DAYS based on WP:N and WP:V and should be removed. Using filters you can zoom in on entries that should not qualify for being listed in DOY-pages. For example: Use the filter in column F to review entries that contain less than 1500 characters (see picture) or use a combination of filters/sorts. The idea is that by experimenting this way we can come up with a rule set that can spot unqualified entries with a high probability. Maybe other properties or criteria exist I didn't think of.
If agreed upon I could generate a list of entries that should be removed from WP:DAYS. I could even automate that manual process but only if there is enough consensus about and trust in the defined rule set.
You can download the Excel file here (yes, it's safe).
Please state Oppose if you don't think that a rule set can be created to define articles that do not qualify for DOY-listing. State your arguments for your opposition.
Looking forward to your suggestions. Mill 1 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples of entries that do not qualify for DOY listing

Because of the *overwhelming* response so far I suspect that project members are a bit hesitative to download and open the shared Excel file. That's why, in a final attempt to get things going, I created a wikitable. The table is an excerpt of the data in the Excel file. It shows entries that are currently listed in DOY-pages but do not qualify for it. Hopefully the excerpt will make clear to what kind of articles DOY-pages are linking to and how much they are in need of trimming.
You can find the sample entries here.

I totally support this proposal. We need something to achieve consistency and combat recentism, as well as making the pages more readable and user-friendly. Deb (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible errors on the February 2 page

The February 2 page lists the birthday for Pat Sullivan as, of course, February 2, but also as the year 1887. When you click on the link for "Pat Sullivan", the resulting Wiki (and almost all of the citations) say February 22, 1885.

I believe the February 2 page is in error, and Pat Sullivan's birthday should be moved to the February 22 page and the year corrected to 1885.

Thanks Rodger Sunderland 108.31.204.64 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. I've fixed it. That's exactly why we moved to require direct citations on DOY pages. Toddst1 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Exemption from WP:V

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The guidelines at WP:DAYS#Style state:

"References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles. However, references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles and not external links."

This seems to have been added years ago and is now taken as an obvious tenet. However it seems to fly in the face of WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN. I propose that this be changed to the wording from WP:BURDEN:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

I think the exemption from references should be struck from this guideline.

Rfc initiated by Toddst1 (talk) at 16:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed originally by Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC) to gain local consensus.

Slightly altered and transposed by Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} at 16:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC) in spirit of WP:WRFC.

• Support--There have been a number of discussions about more aggressive monitoring of new additions to Wikicalendar articles, but it's pretty inconsistent. The idea of allowing indirect citations is unique (as I know it) to this guideline.Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. When readers find a statement that is "challenged or likely to be challenged", it is our policy to provide them a direct and easy way to check whether the content is true. Citations are not unnecessary clutter; they are essential to the encyclopedia. It is a disservice to our readers to force them to click on a link and hunt for a citation in an article when we could provide it upfront. I will also note that this page isn't really a {{guideline}}, but more {{WikiProject style advice}}. Per WP:CONLIMITED, it should not be mistaken to override a core policy like WP:BURDEN. Mz7 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Lists are also required to be verifiable, and WikiProject style guides cannot overrule that. Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:SOURCELIST also indicate that each list items should be sourced where they appear. However, WP:LISTVERIFY does mention that obvious entries do not need to be cited, linking as an example to List of fruits. Could this rationale be used to omit citations on births and deaths? (Events should definitely be cited.) —Laoris (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: this discussion was not closed prior to Toddst1 making this change. Deb (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Three "votes" is not enough to change a guideline that has been accepted since the project began. There was nothing wrong with the previous wording. Deb (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Except the project is loaded with unverified crap, like some of the junk I reverted this morning. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the importance of WP:V and WP:BURDEN, also including lists. However, I think a distinction needs to be made regarding list content: if entries in a list contains information to be verified than it should be referenced (example). The entries in Births- and Deaths sections are references (links) themselves and state no additional information. Why reference a reference? The same is true for most Events. And just consider this: what information of the entry would need to be verified? The validity of the date of birth/death/event? (by the way: you will find that many linked bio's will offer no reference or citation regarding the stated date whatsoever). Last but not least: if the exemption is struck what should happen to the existing entries in the all 366 DOY-pages? A quick scan shows about 350 entries per page. This would mean adding references/citations to over 125,000 existing entries. Mill 1 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

collapsed for readability

The entries would have to be brought up to standard. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Only if your proposal is approved. For now, you've been too hasty in changing the project page. Please revert that change. Deb (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Right - that's the "would" part. You'd rather I didn't answer Mill's question? Don't try to silence this, please. Toddst1 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC) If you really want to improve things, why not respond to User:Mill 1's excellent proposal below?Deb (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I noticed that this and this edit occurred quite a while ago but slipped by my watchlist. Those changes should be reverted as they undo years worth of consensus based practice. References are not required for the DOY articles because they are lists which are required to link to articles that contain the required support. If entries are found that don't comply with the established guideline, that has always been the result of a lack of eyes on the project, not a failed guideline. This project has a history of heroes sweeping in to fix all of the project's problems, starting endless discussions about how it needs to be fixed, followed quickly by months of silence. The guideline works. Always has. Looks presentable, and rarely get's f'd up. It ain't broke. Any article gets crap added to it that needs caretakers to clean up. These lists are no different but given their visibility, they enjoy a disproportionately low number of good caretakers. I have neither the time nor inclination to rehash decade old consensus so don't misconstrue my lack of participation in discussion as acquiescence, just weariness from deja vu. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Thx @Mufka, I did not notice the exemption guideline already had been changed. As this is my first project discussion I am bit puzzled what constitutes project consensus. Regarding this subject a proposal was made, 3 members supported it and within 5 days the guideline was changed (and apparently enforced as of yesterday). Shouldn't there be some kind of deadline before which project members should respond? And after proposal adoption shouldn't there be an announcement when the guideline will be enforced, especially if it has a massive impact like this one? The guideline should be reverted since there is no consensus regarding this proposal. Mill 1 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Yes. No changes should have been made until the discussion was closed - which it wasn't. Deb (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC) And Toddst1, please note this. You can be forgiven for jumping the gun and not getting the discussion closed before you embarked on wholesale changes, but edit warring after you've been corrected is another matter. Deb (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) It appears that this discussion is underway again after nothing for weeks. Making changes while a discussion is underway, as you have, is completely inappropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I agree, and you should not have done so. The discussion was not closed, even though you have amended headers above to make it look as though it was. This is deceitful, and I recommend you stop now. Deb (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I can't fathom how you see that adding a subheading noting that the discussion re-started after lying dormant and changes were made would be deceptive. A bit of good faith would be expected. As it is, this discussion is going fairly far off-topic. I'll collapse it in good faith so as not to distract from the subject of the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Hi @Mufka, can I ask you to move the arguments you stated outside this collapsed for readability-part? Could you also explicity add Support/Oppose? I would hate your views to be obscured by this collapse-thingy. Thx Mill 1 (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support-there are no exceptions to WP:BURDEN, certainly not an arbitrary blanket exemption like this one. Reyk _YO! 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Toddst1, your latest edit, collapsing the discussion, has had the effect of hiding an opposing point of view. I'm sure you didn't intend that. Deb (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I especially agree with Mz7. @Deb: I don't see why you are so concerned about the fact that a discussion which didn't generate a single oppose for three months after it started wasn't formally closed: WP:CLOSE specifically says that Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious, and Toddst1's actions seem to have been perfectly appropriate and in good faith. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The term "guideline" is being thrown around. We're not changing a guideline. We're changing an information page that currently displays information contradicting a policy, WP:V. Per WP:Local consensus, it is not possible for a WikiProject to direct its members to ignore a policy. If you want an exception to the policy, you must seek broad community consensus for that. I see no reason why an exception should be made here. WP:V is quite important to the encyclopedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not an exception to WP:V. Mill 1 has the right of it. Each biographical entry on a DOY page links to an article which supports the assertion. Adding references to each of these is an unnecessary duplication of effort. Of course, controversial claims should be sourced (and in this case, WP:BURDEN is very relevant), but far from every birth/death requires an inline citation. DOY follows the exact same style as MOS:DABPEOPLE, which per WP:WHENNOTCITE, does not require inline citations. It seems pointy to me to insist that all 100,000+ entries be cited inline. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Not seeing any compelling reasons why an exception should exist for this. Articles change, which occasionally mean sources get lost and therefore information here would no longer be verifiable. It is not hard to copy a source here when an entry is made and it means this information is readily accessible to readers and editors interested in verifying where the information comes from. AIRcorn (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This information can be verified by clicking on the link to the name/event. Adding references to these lists is unnecessary duplication without any functional improvement. MB 13:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:V requires only that the information can be verified, it does not require inline links except for situations covered by WP:MINREF. It has long been accepted that references can be in the form of [external] links, as long as any reader can access those links for verification of the information, which is certainly accomplished when a wikilink is provided to a referenced article. Of course, if the wikilink refers to an article which does not repeat the information given here with a proper citation, then WP:V is not met, but insisting that all information must be cited where it appears is just pointy disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support absolutely as per WP:LISTVERIFY. Project members should review WP:ADVICEPAGE "Editors who are working on such an advice page or section are encouraged to carefully study the main policies, guidelines, and relevant well-accepted general Wikipedia essays. The good advice pages do not conflict with the site-wide pages, "--Moxy (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the reason why our policies and guidelines say that we should not rely on links to support info in lists is somple... WP articles are not set in stone - they can change. It is quite possible that an article being linked to in a list will get rewritten at some point, and the rewritten version a) may now present different, conflicting information or b) may no longer contain the information in question at all. In both cases, the information being presented in the list becomes "no longer supported"... even via a link). To prevent this, it is vital that information be supported by a citation in every article where it appears... including lists. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (and I kinda expected to support) the actual proposal does not conform with WP:V - WP:V is not that strict regarding citation itself. Citation only applies in MINREF circumstances. More practically, I just looked at January 1 and this proposal is a recipe for massive disruption. It is difficult to imagine those supporting have really looked at what Wikipedia has done BY CONSENSUS with these lists - if this is to change, at all, it has to be slow, measured and with huge loads of work done in creating a plan and a process - not this ham-fisted (and incorrect) one liner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Quite obviously, WikiProject guidelines cannot go against our core content policies. While the proposed choice of words represents only one aspect of WP:V (specifically, one case of WP:BURDEN), it is completely in line with the policy without being too verbose. The important thing here is to get rid of the guidance that conflicts the policy and replace it with something that summarizes the gist of verifiability (any unsourced information may be removed, and cannot be returned without an inline citation, but neither the suggested wording nor the policy mandates doing this for all unsourced content). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Information requires to be verifiable, not necessarily verified. Main page doesn't have references either. Thincat (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per @Thincat and @Ivanvector, to wit, WP:V requires information to be "verifiable, not necessarily verified". Quis separabit? 23:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support: This seams to me an ease of access issue for readers. It would be easier for people to verify the information if we provide it as we usually do, instead of sending them on citation hunts. Strongly disagree with the notion that it needs to be "verifiable not verified" for a statement to be included in an article. It needs to be verified by at least one editor,(The one who put it there) and verifiable for the other editors and readers, easier that is the better. Otherwise we might as-well write articles without any citations and ask readers to google it; That would still be verifiable albeit harder to do. Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. References should not be added where they are unnecessary. A link to the relevant article is sufficient to prove that the event is notable and significant. feminist 16:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – As others have said, this is not some exception to WP:V. Lead sections don't require references because they are summarizing what is referenced elsewhere, and these lists function much the same way. I can see how this could potentially be abused by some bad faith wiki-lawyering, but I think other policies and guidelines should cover that. Nonetheless, I could go probably get behind something along the lines of WP:LEADCITE if people feel the need to be explicit about it. -- irn (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Blueboar: I understand what you mean about changing articles. But please keep in mind that nothing in this process prevents removal of controversial content. Challenged content, per WP:MINREF, requires inline citation before it can be replaced. There's no reason to require that all 100,000+ birthdates, death dates, and events have an inline citation. You're giving free license for somebody to disrupt the encyclopedia by blanking these articles. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, there are long discussions at WP:V Talk about what a proper non-disruptive challenge actually is - V says: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the current wording specifically discourages citations. No wikiproject should be able to override WP:V by saying no references are needed. If someone is disruptive there are means to deal with it, but just because something is difficult (I am not seeing it being that difficult actually as the number of articles are finite and theoretically the sources should be easy to locate) doesn't mean we should not do it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not "overriding" WP:V. It's clarifying that not every statement requires a reference, which is in line with V. WP:CS clearly states: Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged (emphasis mine). If something seems unreliable to you remove it. It then can't be re-added without a source. I don't see why we need a word for word repetition of WP:BURDEN in the WikiProject style guidelines; the existing language is more helpful. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's clarifying that not every statement requires a reference but that's not at all what it says. It says: References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles. That's a blanket statement which, taken at face value, directly contradicts WP:V's requirement for inline citations for some types of statements. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Point of Order

Is this the proper venue to be having a discussion on this subject? I would hate for the RfC to run its course only for people to dismiss its results because of WP:CONLIMITED. What's the proper course of action? AlexEng^(TALK) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say this is the appropriate venue, since the section is discussing an apparent exemption applying only to this project (though I disagree that such an exemption exists or ever existed). If you think WP:CONLIMITED is going to be an issue, shutting down the discussion is not the answer, but it may be prudent to place a neutral notice of the discussion somewhere more visible. Given the nature of the discussion I suggest WP:RSN, or an easy go-to is always one of the village pumps (probably WP:VPP in this case). Just, please, don't start a parallel discussion somewhere else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ivanvector. I have no intention of forum shopping or shutting down the discussion here. I just wanted to be sure we followed the correct procedure. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I hope so. I had listed it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines. Per Ivan's suggestion, I've listed it on VPP and RSN.Toddst1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Referencing every single line in DOY is a ... bad idea?

Picture this, each DOY usually has about 200-300 lines. Imagine referencing every single line in a DOY, you will have a ref of another 200-300 lines, a mirror for each content. Each DOY will blow its size 2 times the original size.

I think it is extremely redundant and unnecessary. The original rule (before the changes on October 17, 2017) is that there is no need to place ref to every single line in DOY, as long as the ref is provided in the linked main article. It has always been like this for 10+ years. I respect the proposed intention, however, is this really achievable (given the extreme dynamics of the DOY articles)? is the pressure for compliance really worth it? would it help? 366 DOY each with 200-300 lines means 109,800 new refs should be added, which IMO is extremely redundant given each content actually already well-referenced in the linked main article in the first place (with multi-refs!). What will happen if the project stops in the middle just because we couldn't cope with the dynamic changes usually associated with DOY articles?

In my opinion, the task list of Ensure each article has ==References== {{reflist}} added in the project page is very difficult to be implemented and would introduce major changes in the entire 366 DOY article as well as potential inconsistency throughout the 366 DOY articles for a long period of time. This is the first major change for 366 wiki articles after a decade.

To be honest, I proposed to have the rule of Ensure each article has References (reflist) added removed. I think it doesn't make sense and would cause quite a mess in the run. Now I just read it (I missed it!), I actually strongly oppose the proposal of Exemption from WP:V discussed above. It would create a big burden to whoever responsible for completing this not enforceable project. As you may all know, each of the DOY articles is one of the most dynamic articles in Wikipedia, it is keep changed by random users on every single day.

What are your opinions? Is this "project" of referencing really worth it? Let's open discussion for the sake of improvement?--Rochelimit (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the problem is many of these entries are just plain wrong. Referencing them is certainly not bad, and should lead to higher quality. However, Rochelimit removing references is certainly not helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As I explained to you earlier in my talk page, the reason I removed this (only 1 removal) is before the removal, I checked the linked main article and found the exact same ref in the article 1982 bombing of the African National Congress headquarters in London (linked to the word "bomb") is referenced to "the Guardian". It is exactly the same ref as the one used in the DOY, also "the Guardian". That's why I decided to remove it, seeing this as already referenced in the main article, thinking this as redundant.--Rochelimit (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the problem was that this project had explicitly exempted themselves from WP:V (See RFC above that fixed this). The general practice was (for 10+ years as you say) to assume that if there was a linked article that the material would be sourced in that linked article - and that practice has failed miserably with the DOY articles containing tons of false info. There are a few folks who have been doing remarkable work cleaning up this mess, even some like @Deb: who originally opposed the change.

What you're proposing is a new exemption from WP:BURDEN - a policy which states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." That is a very bad idea. Toddst1 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think like that. My intention is to keep the clean look of the original DOY (nicely linked to the main page), as well as to avoid redundancy (sorry for the bold there, I'm just following your format). Sure you need to check, but I can live with reviewing and checking (you need to review anyway, especially with the constantly changing DOY where people can add ref to a Hallmark-ish link). I don't really like the idea of having the same mirror ref which would blow the size of the DOY up just for the sake of compliance. It will be messy, that's my opinion anyway.--Rochelimit (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand Rochelimit's argument, but, as Toddst1 says, I was outvoted when I argued against making referencing mandatory in DOY articles, so there is not much point me trying to prolong the discussion here. One thing I would mention is that not many of those who wanted the references included seem to be doing anything to stop contributors adding yet more unreferenced entries; if this policy is going to be followed, it also needs to be enforced consistently. That is just too big a job. Having said that, I have noted recently, when doing some cleanups on older articles, that there are quite a lot of false or trivial entries in the main year articles, which I would like to see removed. Deb (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to argue that that RfC was closed in a WP:SUPERVOTE. Eleven people disagreed with the policy change and twelve made the same rebutted argument for changing it. In what world does that equal consensus? Now we're here again, months later, where Toddst1 is still arguing that we're trying to get an "exemption" from WP:V (or in this case, WP:BURDEN). The answer is still the same, Toddst1. Content referenced in linked articles is still referenced content; it's not an exemption. Forcing in-line citations on DOY articles is an asinine proposal. That being said, removing ones that are already there is not constructive either. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to enter the fray on this after being silent for so long. And I probably won't engage beyond this post. When I added the text about references not being needed in 2007, it was based on the then current practice, an idea that managing references was more onerous than ensuring linked articles contained the needed references (or at least supported the claim), a desire for manageable consistency, and an understanding of WP:SAL as it was written then, not including any explicit requirement that lists were referenced. If I remember correctly, most lists were not referenced at that time.

For those supporting hyper-referencing, I wonder what the real goal is. How do you think you'll enforce it? However it is, it won't work, to put it bluntly. I've been to this rodeo. Arguing for no references: not enough interested to patrol it. Argue for all references: not enough interested to patrol it. I've spent thousands of hours on just the DOY pages, and when I was most active (mostly before script assisted editing, BTW), I felt good that the format was consistent, content was reasonably accurate, and a few active patrollers kept it that way. Now there's a push to add more requirements to it standing behind the inflexibility of WP:BURDEN and ignoring WP:BRAR when it works. My suggestion is to not require citations, but still require that the entry links to something that supports it. DOY pages are more of a curiosity than anything meant to be encyclopedic. If you want encyclopedic, click the article. I just looked at a sample of 10 pages, and the ones with references all had 1 (one). You've got a lot of work to do and no labor to do it. Do you want a mess of inconsistency that will never be 20% done, or something that is presentable, 80% done, and manageable. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand Toddst1 intention, and changes may be good(?). However I also see that this massive project of ensuring 200,000 lines is properly referenced with another 200,000 lines of refs is... not really do-able. Believe me, I know. Not so many wiki users have the commitment to actually realize a project of this scale, 10+ years of experience talking here (maybe the reason why Mufka's a bit wore off on this idea, 10+ years of rodeo ;) ). My experience is mainly in the H&O section of DOY. The H&O has been pretty consistent today, but back then, it was horrible. Unsorted, commercial Hallmark observances (throw a pie day, kiss an Australian day), cult promotion, and inconsistent styles. Not anymore :)

So I don't know what's the problem right now. If the problem is "a lot of people keep vandalizing DOY with weird birthdays", I don't think referencing every single line in DOY is the solution for that. BUT if your problem is that you want to be super strict on referencing rules; picture this, the very real consequence of 366 inconsistent and messy DOY articles and no one really cares about fixing them back because it is just a lot of boring unnecessary work, it's just not exciting.

I had a little discussion with Toddst1 and Mufka in my talk page. Toddst1, I really care about the DOY (especially the H&O) and I know referencing every single line in DOY is not a good idea, believe me I know, +10 years talking right now.

How about this. I'm not going to remove all the references that have existed in DOY prior to this discussion (even the one (only 1) that I did and Toddst1 had reverted, I will not remove that. only 1! don't make it sound like I removed a lot of references in the DOY prior to this discussion.). I have been doing a routine cleanup specifically for the H&O section of the DOY for the past 10+ years (mainly keeping it sorted, because as I said before, I have done a major cleanup on the H&O, so no more big work). And so this is my proposal: I'm going to help the spring-cleaning work on all 366 DOY articles. Hopefully, this will help those who actually do the cleanup work (like @Deb:). However, Toddst1, please please consider removing the rule of "Ensure each article has References (reflist) added removed". It's a very huge redundant work to blatantly implement a rigid rule just for the sake of compliance.

I know perhaps it feels wrong, but sometimes the ideas of enforcing WP:this, WP:that, compliance-compliance, to be politically correct, really feels like too many policies going on that is not really the solution for a problem that can actually be solved with a better and much simpler solution, that is a routine checkup by few users that actually care. It has worked then and it can work still. It really not tons of false info really, they're still manageable. Please think about this Toddst1, this is my opinion.--Rochelimit (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To tell the truth, my main concern about the DOY articles is that there are too many birth and death entries. A lot of newish users seem to make it their business to go through them adding everyone they can think of in their particular field or from their home country - so (for example) there are lots of Australian rugby league players who are little known outside Australia. This makes the page unmanageable and unrepresentative. Insisting on references is one way of reducing this tendency but it won't, in the long run, help sort out the births and deaths sections. Deb (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I supported the idea to reference each line. I try to help out with things that I support, because it is a bit hypocritical if I do not. So for a week or so, I would click on five or so entries, looking for the citation for the date entry. Maybe one out of five times I would actually find a citation, and then add it to the DOY article. Did not take long for me to give up on that project; I thought that most of the entries were cited in the article as it gets claimed here time and time again, but through my moderate sample size that was not the case. I ended up abandoning the effort when I found that out. Kees08 (Talk) 20:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is our purpose to help facilitate the spread of knowledge and re-searchable sources.....we are not here to makes lists of links and make our readers run around searching articles for academic sources as per WP:LISTVERIFY .--Moxy (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I will help on reducing the amount of births and deaths. The referencing however, I don't think I am able to commit on that, too tedious for me. BTW Moxy our readers don't really run around searching article seriously, it's available in the link, just a click away.--Rochelimit (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on my personal experience, where I did not find the citations in the articles? Did I pick a bad subset of data? Kees08 (Talk) 04:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know Kees08, my only experience is with the H&O section. The styling of all the 366 H&O articles have been unified, which makes it easier to monitor. Sometimes new observance with no linked main article appears, this is very manageable because I can just reverted the edit during my weekly H&O check. Sometimes the linked article has poor reference; in this case I improved the main article by adding reference there and not adding references in the H&O section. I choose to improve the ref instead of deleting the observance blatantly because I think it's kind of unfair to the person who added the observance (of course, notability is still a big consideration).

My only experience with the non H&O is the 1982 African bomb, and for this case, the linked article is very well-referenced. That's why I decide to remove the ref, not knowing in 2017 a new rule has been put in place.--Rochelimit (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As we would say in the Netherlands: this discussion has a very long beard by now. First and foremost: I understand perfectly why Toddst1 started his initiative almost a year ago. I am also passionate about the quality of this encyclopedia, WP:DOY in particular, and am also frustrated about the number of DOY-entries that are wrong or that link to crappy bio's. Hell, I even launched a failed initiative to get rid of entries that link to unreferenced and unnotable articles.
Although I'm a bit reluctant to enter yet another new discussion on this topic I'll state my top 5 reasons why I believe that the guideline requiring inline citation for every DOY-entry was misguided.

1. As Mufka pointed out already: entry links are references themselves; they link to something that supports it but have no encyclopedic value themselves. Why reference a reference?
2. Why was the exemption from references included in the WP:DAYS-guidelines in the first place? Our sister project WikiProject Years for instance does not state anything regarding citation exemptions in their guidelines because it is a non-issue. In fact most lists in this encyclopdia containing entries to articles do not provide inline citations (f.i. this, this,this). This has never been a problem.
3. The legitimacy of the 'new' guideline has already been questioned here a couple of times (by Deb f.i.). How on earth can 12 Support votes against 11 Oppose votes be considered consensus?? I am still baffled by this and I am still not convinced by the arguments provided by user Agtx who closed the discussion that 'adopted' the new guideline.
4. As I stated before the practicalities of the guideline have not been taken into account. I predicted that in practice if a (new) editor wants to add an entry he/she will not first studie the DOY guidelines before commencing. He will open the editor and will make the edit using existing entries as an example. Only a tiny fraction of the entries are sourced. So editors will keep on adding unsourced entries. The only way to prevent this is to:

• Add inline citations to the 125,000+ existing entries in DOY
• Add warnings to the top of each DOY-page (even section?) that entries need to be sourced.

As has been pointed out; that has not been done since September 2017 and it never will.

5. Because of the previous point the guideline is being enforced arbitrarily. DOY-edits of active editors like me and Alanna the Brave are closely monitored whereas unreferenced additions from other editors (who have been less outspoken in this discussion) are left untouched. This feels unfair.

That's my two-cents. I will follow this discussion closely and with interest. Mill 1 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point Mill 1 with the list articles that contain no refs. I remember there is a wiki rule of "you don't have to cite every single sentence in a paragraph", I forgot where did I see it, but it's kind of similar.

My plan is probably to bring this discussion to another level, perhaps another village pump? I don't know. It's May 2018 already, 8 months since the rule "Ensure each article has -References- (reflist) added" was first proposed. As of now, most DOY articles are as pristine as ever before ^{(random check May 20, June 16, February 12, May 4, December 19)}, as if nobody have the interest to enforce ref on every single line in DOY (rationally, it's a massive work!). I mean back then, I don't think I reach half a year to complete the project of making sure that all the 366 H&O section of DOY is consistently styled, and that was me working alone! no help!

To be honest I really want Toddst1 to give his opinion on the idea of reverting his proposed rule "Ensure each article has -References- (reflist) added", since he's the one who added this in the first place. I think it's kind of unfair to him if I started a village pump discussion without him commenting first, I really don't like the idea of making Toddst1 upset, because he's the one to propose this idea. So I really want Toddst1 to give his neutral and constructive comment on this, or perhaps even a solution.

So before moving forward, I really really appreciate if Toddst1 can give his opinion, after reading thoughtfully all the considerations above.--Rochelimit (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to Rochelimit's suggestion: My plan is probably to bring this discussion to another level, perhaps another village pump?:

At the end of this interaction Agtx suggests that if there are new things that have come up since the change that merit revisiting this issue, then there's nothing stopping us from having the discussion again (which we are doing now). I propose that we should initiate a Rfc here asap to strike the new guideline from the WP:DOY-guidelines altogether and not replace it with an References exemption to prevent future confusion. There are better and more feasible ways to clean up the mess. Mill 1 (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This long standing problem was so bad that years ago the community decided to no longer links dates because the project was not able to keep up with our basic verification standards. Verifiability is a core content policy....one of only 3 that certainly shouldn't be circumvented by any project WP:Local consensus. If as people say here they check for verifiability why not copy and paste that source so our readers don't have to go hunting for sources that may or may not be there or may or may not be up-to-date. No one is advocating deletion of these pages... just that the project starts to meet our basic verifiability standards as laid out by multiple policies and guidelines... this would include adding sources when old statements are challenged..... and provide academic resources for your new statements. It may seem daunting but this is the result of 10 years of neglect despite concerns raised multiple times throughout the decade including creation and expansion of policies and guidelines directly addressing this concern like WP:BURDEN and WP:LISTVERIFY Moxy (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Moxy, I found a couple of featured lists that don't cite every single listed content e.g. List of national anthems, List of Pokémon, etc. (although I also found many featured lists which cited every single listed content). In your book, do these articles comply with Wikipedia policy of verifiability (of every single content)?

My point is that these featured lists, the fact that they do not put citation into every single line, means that it is not a problem to do that, as long as they are still verifiable. Verifiability, I think, is not blatantly translated as citing every single sentence, every single line, etc. People have to go "hunting" if they want to cite Wikipedia in their thesis, report, etc (if you translate clicking the provided link as "hunting"). Common Moxy just one click away is not really "hunting" in a difficult way. They're still verifiable!

Probably the problem is that we don't have enough editors to monitor the overwhelmingly dynamic DOY, and some decided that referencing every single line is the solution. Whereas as a couple of editors stated on top, this is not the solution. A bot may be a solution, but no, not adding reference. "Compliance" is probably the valid reason to enforce the idea of putting a reference in every single line, but putting a reference in every single line is definitely not a solution to reduce vandalism. So there's a slight miss there in which the solution thought to be able to solve the problem doesn't really solve the problem, and instead, introduce another set of problems.

The new rule has been enforced for 7 months+ since October 2017. It's clear that there is very little effort to implement the new rule, as stated in the comment above, many DOY articles are still untouched by the new rule thought earlier as enforceable. That's why I proposed to revert the new referencing every single line rule, that's my opinion.

On the other side, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of placing -reference- (reflist) though.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mill 1, thanks for sharing the link to your discussion with Agtx. I also feel that the discussion in October 2017 was put into closure a little bit too quick. In my opinion, Retaining existing styles is also a key point, which is also stated in the Adding individual items to a list. Verifiability is not just fulfilled if you add a ref in my opinion, in the case of DOY, Retaining existing styles needs to be balanced as well.

Anyway, What do you mean by not replace it with an References exemption to prevent future confusion.

I think there are a couple of good points here pros and cons. My proposal is to remove the new rule of referencing every single line, but following that, work intensely on removing un-notable contents. I may draw a conclusion after going this through another RFC or just together we agree to conclude something. Before that I think it's better to wait a 2-3 days until another comment appears. Mill 1 can you guide me a bit on this later, sorry I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia lexicons... --Rochelimit (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in this discussion or state an opinion one way or another on this topic. Two points that are worth considering, however. 1) The previous RfC was not closed prematurely. There was over a month of discussion, and comments had slowed to a crawl by the time I closed it. 2) As with any RfC, the result can be changed if a new consensus develops. However, this RfC is not worded in a way that alerts the community that you're reopening the issue that was decided previously, and it does not contain a "brief, neutral statement" of the issue as required by WP:RFC. If there's appetite for another discussion about this, that's totally fine, but you need to open a new, clear, neutrally-worded RfC. agtx 17:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rochelimit, What I meant by not replace it with an References exemption to prevent future confusion is that, in my view, there is no need to state the exemption explicitely. Other projects that primarily state lists (f.i. WikiProject Years) do not state a reference exemption in their guidelines; this makes similar guidelines between projects confusing and inconsistent. As to the next steps regarding this discussion; I'm a relative novice in this field as well. Perhaps the suggestion by Agtx stated above is helpful. Mill 1 (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agtx, nobody's saying it was premature, but why did you close an 11-to-12 RfC as anything other than no consensus? AlexEng^(TALK) 18:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agtx said they were not planning to respond, so my guess is that since it is not a vote, Agtx reviewed the merits of the arguments and decided one was much stronger than the other, and acted accordingly. Kees08 (Talk) 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexEng: Although Kees08 is right that I'm not going to participate substantively in this discussion, I'm always happen to explain a close. In this case, I did not determine the consensus by way of nose-count. Rather, as required, I disregarded arguments that directly contradicted Wikipedia guidelines. For example, several of the oppose !votes stated that inline citations aren't required at all on these articles because material must be "verifiable, not necessarily verified," and that therefore a wikilink is enough. But WP:BURDEN says: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis added). I gave little weight to those !votes because they were arguing that even challenged material could remain on the page without an inline citation to a reliable published source. Other oppose !votes did not so obviously fly in the face of Wikipedia policy, and I counted those, but there were ultimately more support !votes. If you think that I read the consensus wrong, you can of course ask for the close to be reviewed (I don't think it's necessary and I don't think it will change anything, but I won't be offended). agtx 15:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's important that every statement in Wikipedia have a source -- preferably the best that exists, but even a crappy one means editors & readers can know where the statement came from, & nudge them to replacing that crappy source with a better one. And I believe that even lists should have sources. (I've been spending the last two years providing sources for List of Roman consuls, so I am not only putting my money where my mouth is I also know what kind of chore that is. And how good it feels to make something in Wikipedia solidly reliable.) That said, it's a reasonable assumption that having the information to have a subject included in a list like DOY -- or its partner, the Year pages -- should be provided in the linked article. So why not propose a new rule: All articles linked to a DOY page must provide a source that verifies the event/birth/death did happen on that day -- or the item & relevant article is unlinked. Put the burden of proof on whoever wants to add the article. (Note: I'm assuming here one doesn't add an event/birth/death to a DOY article without the relevant article existing.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Rochelimit's overall position that having every sentence reflinked would be messy overkill and references should be reserved for text which is disputable or whose provenance is required for purposes of verification and scholarship. I also agree with @Rochelimit regarding Exemption from WP:V. Quis separabit? 22:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wp:v should be followed, it would work fine if a requirement to "challenge" includes expressing a concern about the verifiability of the uncited item. Then only the entries that were sincerely questioned would need to be cited. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Agtx for your points. I'm trying to be neutral but I'm getting little input from the opposer of this idea. I'm going to start village pump for this (recommend me if there's a better solution). The proposal is to restore the "References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles. However, references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles and not external links." and modify the "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." with "Material lacking a reliable source in the linked article will be removed."

I'm going to start village pump this weekend probably.--Rochelimit (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know this had happened. a) I think there is a significant difference between 'events' and the other subcategories. 'Events' are statements that do not necessarily exist as such elsewhere in Wiki. I can see the necessity for verification if it is not simply a link to an existing article. b) if it is simply a link to an existing article (eg The Fall of Constantinople see below. c) The other categories are simple links to articles in W. They are more like lists or indices. An index in a book does not reference its entries - the references are at the places where the indexed words appear in the book. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Re the above: VPP

Heads up to those who care, at some point in the next week I will be at VPP asking for community review of the above initiative giving too much weight to a mere WIkiProject essay. When, IDK as my schedule is quite up in the air for the time being. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

How many mentions?

September 30 has James Dean mentioned twice, once under Events and another under Deaths. Is this reasonable? Or should every birth and death be listed under Events also? Shenme (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a death, not an event. Toddst1 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:March 15#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:March 15#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages. -- -- -- 22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:May 21#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:May 21#Criteria for who is worthy of being mentioned on these pages. -- -- -- 20:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Birth / death dates as tables instead of lists

I think it would be good if the list of people born / died on each day was something like:

Births on 1st January

Year	Name	category	description	death
377	Arcadius	Historic leader	Byzantine emperor	408
1431	Pope Alexander VI	Historic leader	Pope	1503
1994	Craig Murray	Sport	Scottish footballer
1995	Poppy	Entertainment	American singer

This would make it easy to sort by category or year of death (and people who are still alive), as well as year of birth.

Obviously what categories people go in would take some thinking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjmunro (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the size of these pages, it seems really clunky. Toddst1 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"More citations needed" template?

Per #Exemption_from_WP:V above, and because I have been made aware of the situation on my talk page, I would suggest creating a template, based loosely on {{More citations needed}}, to explain the new situation. This template should be placed above all Days-of-the-year articles, or at least above sections about living persons, until references have been added to all the statements. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi from a new project member.

I have been on Wikipedia since 2006, but I'm not much of a joiner. I enjoy looking at today's DOY and then cruising around to interesting articles. I have little or no interest in the births and deaths, but I visit many of the "events" articles. I have always been truly annoyed by "event" listings that I think are too long. Recently, I unilaterally decided to start taking action, and I have been trimming overlong event entries, and in the few cases that the event was not supported by the linked article, I delete it. I then realized that maybe I should find out if my actions are supported by guidelines, and I stumbled upon this project.

I basically look at all entries that are long enough to wrap to a second line on a reasonably-sized desktop page, and then trim out what I consider to be excessive detail. I try fairly hard to leave enough information to let a casual reader know whether or not the event is of interest to the reader, so a few entries are still a bit long after trimming.

So, here's the question: Am I being too aggressive in my trimming? -Arch dude (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arch dude. I'm fairly new to editing, and also brand new to the project. So I can't answer your question in terms of what the project's guidelines and other members would say. I too am interested in the "Events" section, but from the perspective of adding events. I've noticed over time that the "events" lists often contain few - or no - achievements by women. I'm making sure each line I add is very brief, and the wikipages I'm linking to support the inclusion. I'm hoping we are not going to cancel each other out in our edits, and would appreciate others' views on the best approaches for both of us. Moira Paul (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Moira Paul: Welcome and thanks for helping. No, we won't cancel out at all. I very rarely remove an "event" entry, I just shorten them. I will only remove an entry when there is no linked article or when the linked article does not mention the event. Since your approach will add events that meet my (our) inclusion criteria, I'm happy to see them. Since you are willing to keep them brief, it's unlikely I will trim them. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? It seems to me that your self-imposed task of adding events is an ideal task for a new editor, and I hope you stay with it, but you may wish to also join that project. -Arch dude (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Arch dude:. Thanks! I'm already part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red but that project always looks useful. Moira Paul (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Moira. WIR is interested in increasing the number of women here. I found your comment because I just added the births of Edith New and Mary Blathwayt to 1 Feb and 17? of March. Some tweet their additions at #wikiwomeninred. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Standard headings for 'in recent years' sub-pages?

Hi. I was planning to add something to the '2018' subpage for January 14 (ie Portal:Current events/2018 January 14). There wasn't a heading it would have fitted under, so I was wondering if there is a list we should be referring to so we make sure we are being consistent? If not, should there be? Moira Paul (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Moira Paul: There is a list of headings, which can be found at the top of Portal talk:Current events. (But quite possibly nowhere else, which is a little weird as it should really be centralized somewhere more "official".) Anyway, the message box on that talk page contains the following:

-- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent problems

There has recently been a spate of anon IPs adding unreferenced entries to the DOTY articles, and I have protected some of the most popular pages, i.e. the ones around the current date, for a period so that anons can't edit. I have just blocked User:Unknown artist for repeatedly doing the same, despite several warnings on his talk page and a block log as long as my arm. Deb (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Want to add new event on 15th of June... But the problem is...

Hi on June 15th I want to add the foundation of the UEFA because that day UEFA come to life so the problem is that I want to add it but if I do so I might get into trouble because if a want to reference it, I cannot do it because I'm a mess on this thing of Wikipedia codes and I have been warned several times because of my problem of referencing things I add into the Wikipedia... So my proposal is that I will add it myself and someone who is more skilled than me add the reference. Waiting some kind people who can understand me without threating me like a dumb... Thanks in advance!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeutscherFeuer (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@DeutscherFeuer: Hello! Thank you for your willingness to help the Wikiproject. If you want to add the entry regarding the UEFA, then I am happy to do it for you, so long as you find a link to somewhere that provides proof about the event. If you can't find a reliable source, then unfortunately, nothing can be done to the page. If you can find a suitable link you can reply on this page or at my talk page. If you have anymore questions please ask me here or at the help desk. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Add references to your birthday" event

Referring to #Exemption_from_WP:V above, how about creating an event to get this problem fixed? Let's ask project members and interested people to add references to the article about their birthday. Ideally, someone born (or who has started editing on) January 1 would add all the required references to the "January 1" list. In most cases, these are already given in the linked article, can quickly be verified for reliability and then copied to the list. In a few cases, there will be unverified statements, and these should be removed from the linked article and the list. Whenever this happens, we also prove that it was a good idea to require references for the list entries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I sometimes add references to the current day but it feels like drops in the ocean. Ping me if this ends up happening. Kees08 (Talk) 00:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. Toddst1 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've completed the cleanup of mine. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work Toddst1. I am working on July 21 (when we first walked on the Moon, UTC time). I was planning on going through and adding citations to all that I could, but should I cleanup/shorten the list first? I saw your date is significantly shorter than the July 21 list. Kees08 (Talk) 19:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I know Deb and I have been I walking through each item one at a time and either inserting a reference from the linked article that supported the date/year or removing entries where no such reference was in the linked article. I also removed many unsupported DOBs from the linked articles per WP:BLP/WP:DOB. YMMV.

I'm slowly working on my wife's birthday. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Roger, sounds good. I thought I saw something about a notability minimum requirement, is that still a thing? Kees08 (Talk) 22:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome work in improving the DOTY articles and their veracity

For the record, @Deb:'s work on this project has been nothing short of awesome. I've awarded her a Spotlight User_talk:Deb#The_Defender_of_the_Wiki_Barnstar. Please keep up the awesome work!! Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Direct references required to add dates of birth & death now?

I was just reverted for an update to May 17 adding year of death for Herman Wouk, who passed today (17 May 2019) at age 103. This is in the subject's article with proper reference to his death date. I have been informed we need the reference in the date page. I do not understand this requirement and as I do not usually edit Dates pages I was not aware. This is daft. Every entry in a date page must have a link to an article in the English Wikipedia (they all do). The corresponding article takes care of asserting notability and it must have a reference for dates of birth and death to be accepted. Is this for real? Almost none of the current entries for May 17 have a reference in that page and I can guarantee this goes for every day and every year page without looking much for it. Shouldn't we then delete all entries that are not referenced? This is a navigation page, informative, and pointing to the corresponding articles, which must be properly referenced. Who came up with this? Am I upset about this? You bet. Can someone please explain the reasoning? And let me know who will start removing all "unreferenced" entries so we start from scratch. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that these pages are loaded with errors as well as links to articles that do not have reliable sources to back the information up. Several of us have been working on adding direct references for existing entries and removing entries that can't be supported, but it's a ton of work. In fact, it's one of @Deb:'s superpowers. New additions without direct sources are pretty much reverted on sight. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Alexf. The guidelines for DOTY were amended in July 2018, by consensus, to make this specific. I didn't agree with the change, but since working on it, I've realised just how many of the entries were either on the wrong date or not supported by any reference at all. Deb (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This change means that moving wrongly-dated things to their right date becomes more cumbersome. I do appreciate that someone walks that extra mile, but I cannot be bothered to help with it. --Palnatoke (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

name-calling by blocked IP-hopping sockpuppet collapsed

Me neither. This requirement forcing editors to reference new entries or modifications on an index page is one of the stupidest Wikipedia policies in existence. Okay, I assume it was arrived at by consensus - at least I hope it was - but the idea of Wikipedia consensus is, itself, often found wanting. Regardless, the policy is sure as hell bound to drive away potential new editors, as they see their work "reverted on site". It's like going back to school! "Now you know you must reference entries on this index page, so go away and be a good little boy and do it like we told you (we've reverted your change, just to teach you a lesson)". Instead of "reverting on site", the busybodies who concern themselves with this would be far better employed putting the references in themselves, which more often than not, would merely involve copying what's already in the source article. 31.52.162.143 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 31.52.162.143, I noticed that none of your contributions anywhere to-date have included any sources. Perhaps you should learn how to use sources before you comment on when and where they may be appropriate. That would be just the one article at Appleton Wiske, where I was simply removing an untruth. My other contributions under this IP are copyediting, and actually adding a reference to the "revert on site" removal from DOTY that you made. So I think you're exaggerating when you mention "none of my contributions..." 31.52.162.143 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) BTW, calling other editors who are maintaining standards "busybodys" is a guaranteed way to get yourself blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:DOYCITE

How is the above guideline intended to be implemented? Now that these articles are no longer exempt from WP:V, are we to go around deleting practically every article maintained by this WikiProject as almost none of them have any references? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable sorry for the delay. No, this is not the case. All articles that were added before the 'no longer exempt from WP:V' discussion to DOTY pages can stay, just new entries with a WP:RS should be deleted. The few WikiProject members still participating are gradually trying to add sources to each entry. You can see the effort at January 1, January 2, May 11 and January 3. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

​Perhaps then, the text of the guideline should be changed to read: Any material added after 16 October 2017 lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of clean-up being done, where unsupported entries are being slowly culled out. See discussion above. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition of South Korean boy band debuts

Can I add these: {{BTS(band)|BTS}} {{Seventeen (South Korean band)|Seventeen}} Thanks

FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia what are you trying to ask? I can direct you to the Teahouse or the Help Desk to ask questions.

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: , but do not sign in articles. Willbb234 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to edit 2013 and 2015 by adding their debut dates. Can I? FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Cite requirement for additions to day-of-year articles

I learned about the requirement for inline citation on new entries to day-of-year articles just by chance. It appears as though many (most? all?) day-of-year articles are semi-protected. Is it possible to send a mass notification to all editors with pending changes reviewer permissions letting them know about the requirement? Schazjmd (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Links...

Many entries in 'Days of the Year' refer to an event but often there is no link to the event described. An example is Jan 2 where the entry under 1942 refers to the capture of Manila but the links are to the city of Manila and the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The links to the 'Philippines_campaign_(1941–1942)' or 'Japanese_occupation_of_the_Philippines' are missing or omitted.

Can we review the entries throughout the section that do not link directly to the sense of the entry? If the event is incidental to any specific page, perhaps it does not merit an entry in 'Days of the Year'. If anything, the occupation of Manila is most historically related to the fall of the Philippines than to the city in isolation. Malchemist (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of race or religion in birthdays?

I have seen this pop up here and there -- someone will add the subject's race (usually African-American) to the descriptive note on a birthday line. One example is Star Jones on March 24. This seems unnecessary, unclear, and inconsistent.

• Unnecessary: The person's race can be easily discovered by navigating to the subject page.
• Unclear: In the case of "African-American," the term looks a lot like a description of nationality.
• Inconsistent: Unless we plan to mention the race of every single birthday person, we should not mention it for any of them.

I have similar qualms about religion, "Jewish" being a commonly seen descriptor that is not needed here. The vast majority of birthday lines include only nationality and occupation (or other brief notability memo). Calling out the fact that someone is not white or Christian seems a bit old-fashioned to me.

What would it take to firm up the rules here and make birthday lines more consistent? Krychek (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krychek: I agree on all three fronts and would simply remove this when you come across it. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wham2001: I tried that approach and was asked to stop because there's no actual rule against this practice. Krychek (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the race or religion should be mentioned if it is one of the main reasons the person is being mentioned but not in general. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. could/should be described as "a leader of the african-american civil-rights movement" , but not as "an african-american leader of the african-american civil-rights movement." Donald Trump would not be described as the 45th caucasian president of the United States. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So what is the verdict here? Does this mean that we can remove "African-American" and just make it "American" from birthday entries? For example, on Feburary 16, there is this entry:

1904 – James Baskett, African-American actor and singer (d. 1948)

Now, personally I think the African should be dropped and it just be listed as "American actor and singer" because to me I don't care if they are black, white, green, purple, whatever, they are just an American. As others have said above, they can click on the user to read more about them. Please advise and thank you advance. eposty (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Racing driving or race car driver?

The term is being disputed at June 1 and I think we should seek a consensus, or at least a compromise. "Race car driver" is an American term and "racing driver" a British one. Looking June 1, we have Ted Field and Bob Christie (both American) as race car, while Martin Brundle, Olivier Tielemans and Jo Gartner (all European) are racing. According to User:Eposty, race car should be universal. On the other hand, User:Deb points out that US terminology is for Americans but also cites the example of Auto_racing#Racing_driver, bearing in mind that "auto racing" is an American term for what the British call "motor racing".

A good compromise might be along the lines of MOS:BCE in that you don't change what is already there unless you gain consensus at the article talk page. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The obvious compromise is the one that already exists: use the US term for American drivers (or any other country that normally uses that term; maybe Canada does) and the usual European term, "racing driver", for European drivers. Unfortunately one user had been going through all the year and date pages systematically changing them all to the US term - claiming that it was the more common term until I proved him wrong. Deb (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Deb, I agree. I think we should use race car if it is definitely an American driver and racing driver for all non-Americans, including Canadians because they tend to follow British usage (apart from the dollar). No Great Shaker (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More stringent notability requirements

In the guideline at Wikipedia:Days of the year is the statement: "Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles". This is tagged Template:Specify. I think we do need to expand the statement by saying what is meant by more stringent requirements.

All the birth lists include an excessive number of people who have been fleetingly famous or locally well known during the last twenty to thirty years. I generally find that people born before, say, the Second World War, do have some longer term claim to fame and are noteworthy. The cause of this problem is recentism and it is most apparent in the fields of film, music, TV and sport.

I don't think these lists should include someone who used to be in Coronation Street or someone who played for "The Shakers" in the old Fourth Division, yet you do see these people there, sharing a birthday with an Oscar-winning director or a World Cup winner. They are all notable because of the wider scope of the GNG and so they deserve articles but I really do think we need to narrow the scope of the wiki-calendars to include the Oscar and World Cup winners but exclude the bit part actors and the journeyman footy players.

I would suggest that we insist upon some major achievement for people in these fields who were born since 1960, or maybe 1940, or perhaps in the last century as a whole. For example, starring in a film that was a box office hit or winning a major cinema or TV award like an Oscar or Emmy. In music, winning a Grammy or topping one of the Billboard or UK charts. In sport, winning one of the major titles in sports like boxing, golf or tennis; winning an Olympic gold medal; breaking a world record; playing for a team that wins a world or continental championship; or for a team that wins a major national championship such as the Superbowl or the World Series or one of the English, German, Italian or Spanish football leagues.

I think that if we took this approach we would make it much easier to maintain these articles and, more importantly, we would be making them so much more useful and meaningful for the readers. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think setting stringent notability requirements might prove difficult as what one person considers notable could be very different from what another considers notable. Also, with women, people of colour and people from non-English speaking countries already being under-represented across Wikipedia I'm worried we could end up losing a lot of diversity from these articles. Regards Suonii180 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Suonii180, I really don't think you need to worry on that score. From what I've seen, the non-noteworthies in the lists are predominantly male, white and either British or American or Australian. Where I see women or diversity, they invariably deserve to be included, but I agree with you that they are under-represented on the site as a whole. Besides, I'm focusing on sport and media entertainment only, not the arts or politics or sciences or other areas outside the world of so-called "celebs". There are huge numbers of outstanding non-white people in sport, music and drama who are or will be included because of achievement. Women play major sport as well as men and are prominent in music and drama too. I would certainly revert any discrimination immediately but I don't think that would be a problem except by vandalism which is easily resolved.

The big problem, I think, is recognition. For example, I've just found a birth date source for a chap called Masatoshi Gündüz Ikeda, a Japanese-Turkish mathematician and academic who is especially noted for contributions to algebraic number theory; and another for A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., a prominent civil rights advocate and US federal court judge. On my current source search list are Sally Jessy Raphael, who has won the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Talk Show Host and Oktay Sinanoglu, a Turkish physical chemist and molecular biophysicist who was a two-time nominee for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. We need to recognise the achievements of people like them and not someone who has played football for Wrexham (yes, there is one in the lists). No Great Shaker (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Birthday

Lucas Till was born on the 10th of August 1990. He is not on the list of August 10 birth LISH 0810 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As you have been told in edit summaries, an inline citation of a reliable source is essential for inclusion and, even then, the person must be considered noteworthy rather than merely newsworthy. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

OnThisDay.com

An editor has been mass adding links to this site to "External links". So, yea or nay? --Calton | Talk 13:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

External links only and, as with the other three sites that were already in EL on all DOY pages, not for citation purposes. All four sites are relevant to the subject matter per MOS:LAYOUTEL and provide additional useful sources for readers. See also MOS:FURTHER. I fail to see how "an editor" can possibly be thought to have caused a problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the site I think it falls squarely under WP:ELNO #1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. I would remove it from all the pages. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think that the BBC and NYT links are much better; I'm not convinced that the DoY pages need external links at all. @No Great Shaker: a mass addition of ELs to all the DoY pages is something with the potential to be controversial, so it might have been wise to discuss it here first. Wham2001 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that if one is to go, they must ALL go because they are equal in value (or not) to readers.

The concern here seems to be about "mass edit" rather than the addition of one site to EL. You need to bear in mind that DOY is a single concept split into 366 component parts and all of the OTD, BBC and NYT sites are structured in the same way, so it isn't a case of adding this EL once only as for a normal article. It has to be done 366 times on a date-by-date basis which means that a "mass edit" is inevitable, as it was for each of the other three date-by-date sites – and did anyone object when those were done or did they establish a precedent?

I think these sites provide value for the readers as long as they are not used for citation purposes. Within the confines of EL, they are harmless and potentially useful. I wouldn't lose any sleep over their removal but it is one of those questions where what is useful outweighs what might provide a unique resource. In any event, I cannot see one of these DOY pages ever becoming a featured article.

I do not see anything remotely controversial about adding the same harmless and useful EL to each DOY page and the reason we have WP:BOLD is so that initiatives like this don't get bogged down in pointless discussion. We are here to develop an encyclopaedia, not to become mired in stagnation while we drone on and on about whether we have OTD in 1 April only or the month of April only or the whole year except 29 February and then open a separate discussion about leap years. If I think of introducing something that is definitely controversial, however, that is a different matter. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

List of historical anniversaries

I'm curious as to the purpose and naming of List of historical anniversaries. This article seems to be merely an index of links to specific days of the year. While each of those individual articles note historical events that took place on that day, List of historical anniversaries does not. It is a list of links to days. Seems to be a calendar, essentially. Further "historical anniversaries" is poorly phrased, if not redundant. An anniversary necessarily notes something in the past (historical). If anything, this should at least be rephrased as "notable anniversaries", and perhaps the bolder move would be to rename the entire article Index of days of the year. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ZimZalaBim. The list duplicates Template:Months which is used in each of the DOY articles. I can't see any use for a list that replicates a template so I'd be inclined to delete it. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'll nominate it for deletion. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On this Day: Pt 2

I’ve noticed — for some of the days in October — that some of the entries refer us to the relevant page from OnThisDay.com.

Which is fair enough.

But can we ALSO start adding the equivalent page from Britannica.com?

I also note we’ve long had entries from the BBC, the New York Times and the Canada Channel.

Is it possible to add the equivalents — if there are any — from Australia and New Zealand?

And possibly India?

I know it would add extra work, but having entries from major English language counties seems only right.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

New essay analyzing citation rates in date articles and the workload involved in repair

I've crunched some numbers, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Analysis of citation issues for date and year articles: while I recommend reading the full analysis to understand where this number comes from, I estimate there are about 120,000 to 130,000 uncited statements in the 366 day articles. Much to think about here – I have a detailed breakdown of what all the numbers are and what I think they mean. Probably worth checking out! jp×g 20:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well done. Very interesting read. One point I would emphasise is that it is very rare for WP articles to cite DOB sources. Dates of death tend to be sourced in narrative but rarely in lead or infobox. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this essay. Just out of interest, how long did this all take you? Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References for "Holidays and observances" section?

Looking through the articles listed in the "brought up to standard" section, I notice that they are not quite consistent in whether they contain inline references for items in the "Holidays and observances" sections, (compare e.g. January 1#Holidays and observances with May 11#Holidays and observances). I don't see anything in the Style section of the project page suggesting that these sections don't require references, but since we appear not to all be on the same page on this issue I thought it worth asking.

My personal view is that these sections do require references. In the few articles I've worked through they have each contained very minor saints and holidays of dubious notability, which I've had to remove as unverifiable.

Best, Wham2001 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wham2001 I definitely agree with having the holidays and observances sections referenced, I've previously had to remove entries that were incorrect or on the wrong date. Also, as these sections are usually quite small, they don't take as long to reference compared to the other sections.

--Suonii180 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

regarding having links to wiki articles that mention them, does that mean they do not have to have a wiki article? E.g. simply being in a list of lesser holidays without any description or further linking is fine? (as well as independent ref. of course). 142.163.195.66 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

February 18

This day doesn't have a deaths section. I don't know how we should approach this. Creating an empty deaths section isn't really an option so we might need to fill it up before adding it. This would be quite time consuming though. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a list of deaths but it's been compromised by a citation error in the births section. Leave it with me and I'll sort it out. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. A bad edit by someone not being diligent. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

April 19

Why is formatting of the page "April 19" so different than all others? Any special reason?Ivogusa (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ivogusa, a decision was made here to split the Events, Births and Deaths subsections into three parts by year in all DoY articles, however, most of the pages have not been updated yet. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I work with Wikipedia every day. Shold I start changing records into agreed categories or is there going to be an automatic conversion? I could help...Ivogusa (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ivogusa, I can't speak for the project, but personally I think that would be helpful. Equally, if you want to help out, there is lots of work to be done on the DoY articles adding reliable sources, and removing the unsourceable and barely-notable entries. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ok, I can work on it but the rules are unclear: I thought we agreed on a uniform form how the page should look like. But April 20 shows: pre-19th century, 1801-1940, 1941-present.

April 19 shows: pre-18th century, 1701-1900, 1901-1978, 1976-present

April 21 shows: pre-19th century, 19th century, 20th century, 21st century

So what are the rules? Can any day have different blocks based on the numbers of entries? Please advice Ivogusa (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ivogusa, I don't understand your closing question. We decided to incorporate sub-divisions in order to break up excessively long lists, especially births. The discussion provides an illustration of how this should be done using sub-titles like "pre-19th century", "1901–1950", etc. which are date-oriented. The changes are being rolled out across all 366 project pages but this is time-consuming and so it is a gradual process. We also need to be strict about non-noteworthy entries on all pages, especially people in the worlds of sport and entertainment who have no global impact or importance, so these are being removed as part of the process. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I work on divisions of pages in my free time, but I need to get a green light to continue. I don´t want to do something wrong which will have to be redone later. Please adviseIvogusa (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ivogusa: I think Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template#Subsections should explain what the currently agreed-upon sub-sections should be in the articles. I think it's on the project's to-list to update the articles as we go. Your help is more than welcome. Please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Pre-year format versus pre-century format

I think the use of a term like "pre-19th century" or "pre-20th century" as a section header is confusing some editors and it would perhaps be better to use "pre-1801" or "pre-1901" instead. This is arguably more readable and it is certainly more specific given that there are people who think the 20th century began in 1900 and ended in 1999.

For spans like 1901–1950 which have specific beginning and end years, they must always be separated by an endash not a hyphen per MOS:YEARRANGE. Again, there are people who don't use or understand the endash.

Also, the {{0}} alignment function should be used whenever there are three-digit years in the same section as four-digit ones. I have yet again just had to revert someone who took these out in order to mis-align the years.

If project members are in agreement with these points, could we please incorporate them into the instructions somewhere? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I initially was inclined to agree with you but seeing you going rogue and edit warring [2], [3] against our style guide, making up your own subsections and ignoring the outcome of this discussion, I don't think you're interested in working within this project's guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a breach of WP:CIVIL and amounts to a personal attack, especially as it is irrelevant to this topic and follows a breach of WP:BRD by yourself. In fact, it is you who does not comply with project standards because you are trying to apply template format examples literally instead of using them as guidelines. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no. If I told you that I think you are an arrogant jackass, that would be a violation of WP:CIVIL. Pointing out that you are both edit warring and changing the agreed subsections without discussion is a statement of the facts of your behavior - not a violation of WP:CIVIL. I hope you understand the difference.

It seems like I've at least gotten you to discuss things. Toddst1 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I might say what I think you are except that it really WOULD be a breach of WP:CIVIL, albeit quite true, so I won't. Stop trying to twist things and address the actual issues with the template, starting with the sub-section below. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering the interaction here, I'm going to abstain from this discussion further. There are plenty of other folks on the project who can add value here. I'm sure the outcome will be a community consensus which I will be fine with, whatever that may be. Toddst1 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Then I suggest we begin by raising a proposal to review and revise both the style guide and the template so that they become credible and useful user guides which meet the needs of the encyclopaedia's readers and also remove editorial confusion. At present, those pages fall well short of expectations and are not fit for purpose, as per the issues raised below. I will bring forward a proposal for discussion, but please allow me some time to work on it. It will be on this page but under a new heading. If anyone has any additional issues or wishes to make any positive suggestions towards improving project standards, please open a new topic below and outline them there. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Template issues

According to the project's style guide, "standard date page layout includes the sections: Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, and External links". That is fair enough as those section headings have been in use across all 366 articles for a very long time. The guide does not say anything about sub-section headings and so it must be assumed that these are optional.

The guide does say that "any change to the page layout (my italics) that would be a deviation from the template should be discussed here". But a change to template layout is not the same thing a change to detail. The very purpose of a template is to provide a layout and format guide, not to define detail unless a heading like Events is specified as it is in the guide. The template shows that sub-headings are acceptable and, as a template, it defines accepted formats.

Looking at the examples in the template, they are nonsense. There is a 1600 event in 1601–1900 and a 1600 birth under Pre-1600! How does that help a new editor? The whole thing needs to be reviewed and revised so that it presents a coherent and clear guide for readers and editors. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Two more points about the current template are that "1601 – 1900" is an invalid format, whose spaces do not comply with MOS:YEARRANGE, and that the year 1600 is excluded. "Pre-1600" means up to and including 1599; "1601 – 1900" does not include 1600. There are no accompanying instructions apart from a bit about not getting confused with January 1 and there are no examples in the Deaths section. If the page is meant to be a template, it needs to clarify what is mandatory (Events, Births, Deaths, etc. as level two headings) and what is optional but subject to formatting standards. As a user guide, the page is a complete waste of space. It needs to be reviewed and revised by competent editors who understand the purpose of templates within the user guide concept.

From a reader's point of view, they see that a date has 150 births. Obviously, it is unacceptable that these shall be presented in one unbroken list and some sub-section split is necessary. If we take the current template values, the reader sees three births up to 1599; all births in the year 1600 are either excluded or under the wrong heading; then there may be 25 births up to 1900; followed by 120-plus in the 20th century. What does the reader make of such a ludicrous concoction as that? No Great Shaker (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposals for project improvement

As promised, here are my proposals for improvement of this project. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Single project page

A fundamental issue with a project of such limited scope – only 366 articles – is that it effectively uses three pages when one would be quite sufficient. According to the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, the page is "meant to be a style guide for date pages". On the same page, there is a section headed "Style" to which the shortcut WP:DOYSTYLE links. But, there are other sections on the page which are not concerned with style. This page needs to begin by addressing the aims of the project, which is the method invariably adopted by other projects.

The shortcut to this project page is WP:DAYS while the equally logical shortcut WP:DOY links to Wikipedia:Days of the year, a separate page which also aims to provide guidelines. This has three section shortcuts: WP:BIRTHDOY and WP:DEATHDOY both link to the "Births and deaths" section, which attempts to address the project's main problem area of excessive listings that are mostly caused by recentism. The other shortcut WP:DOYCITE links to a single short paragraph section that rightly stipulates the need for inline citations.

The third project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template which presents additional problems, some of which have been raised in earlier topics. Given that all 366 articles are long-established with the necessary basic structure in place, a template is superfluous because if any style or usage guidelines need illustration, it is better to refer the reader to an example in a live article (e.g., ask the reader to see 1066 in September_25#Deaths for how to deal with three deaths in the same event). The template issues are the sort of thing that should be addressed at DOY/DAYS – e.g., sub-heading formats; date range compliance with MOS:YEARRANGE; instructions about citation details; etc.

This use of what are effectively three project pages can only (and does) lead to confusion, so the three pages should be combined. This should be achieved by merging DOY into DAYS as an additional section. Integration of DOY into DOYSTYLE isn't practical. This would mean both DAYS and DOY would be shortcuts to the actual project page while DOYSTYLE, DOYCITE, BIRTHDOY and DEATHDOY would continue to serve as section shortcuts. The template should be discarded after any useful points are built into the appropriate sections of DOY/DAYS.

DOYSTYLE

This is currently an unstructured list which needs to be revised for improved understanding. Some of the points in DOYSTYLE should be under DOYCITE or BIRTHDOY (or both). There needs to be better co-ordination across the key sections of the project page and that is another strong reason for there being only one project page.

DOYCITE

DOYCITE correctly insists that an inline citation must accompany each new line entry but it needs to be taken further in that the sources named must be reliable and that citations must be presented using an approved format such as cite web, cite book or cite news; or by sfn if the full source is in a bibliography section.

WP:BAREURLS deprecates the use of bare urls and, as this project insists on a citation for each entry, it should also reject any citing a bareurl as these do not provide source information and so the entry is effectively unsourced. The main reasons for proposing deletion of bareurl entries are that there are certain editors who routinely apply them to DOY articles and secondly because the websites have a tendency to be non-WP:RS – e.g., IMDB, blogs, self-published, etc.

Source information varies according to what is available but, where possible, the parameters must include url (if a website), title, author's name (if known), publisher, date or year of publication, isbn (books), bibcode or similar (journals).

BIRTHDOY and DEATHDOY

This has the appearance of a work in progress. There are a couple of points about noteworthiness in the lead of the current DOY which are not fully reflected in the section. Some thought is needed to determine exactly what is meant by "more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles". In this context, the examples for sport, media and drama do not go far enough. If a footballer has "taken part in multiple international events" that means they are more notable than someone who has played in numerous matches for Crewe Alexandra or whoever, but what if the international has never played in the World Cup or the Euros? Is he then noteworthy enough for inclusion given that there are huge numbers of international sports competitors and the project must be seeking to reduce the volume of 20th century births.

Top of page per article

The DOY/DAYS project page should say something about the structure of an article page by mentioning use and purpose of the {{calendar}}, {{This date in recent years}} and {{Day}} templates which are activated by {{PAGENAME}} (i.e., the article's title date). New editors need to know that the use of these three templates is to be taken as read and that they must not be suppressed.

Re the Day template, it should be mentioned that the paragraph it activates in all articles usually forms the entire lead section. Editors should have the option to expand the lead if the date is especially significant for any reason like June 6, July 4 or December 25. If the lead is to be expanded, a new paragraph must be opened for the additional content. It would be as well to include an example of the lead as created by the Day template:

March 31 is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar; 275 days remain until the end of the year.

Events, Births and Deaths sections per article

Some of these points exist as comments on article edit pages and need to be emphasised on the project page:

1. The Events, Births and Deaths sections are mandatory with level 2 headings that exist in all 366 project articles. Do not alter or remove them.

2. Do not add names of people without Wikipedia articles to these lists. Red links are not accepted by this project.

3. Do not trust "this year in history" websites for accurate date information. However, four of these are in the external links on each article page.

4. Do not link multiple occurrences of the same year, just link the first occurrence (per the 1066 example above).

Splitting lists into sub-sections

On the current issue of sub-sections within the Events, Births and Deaths listings, the solution can NEVER be "one size fits all". Each article has different requirements according to its content. Some have fairly short Events sections which really do not need to be split. As a rule of thumb, a list of up to 25 entries will not greatly exceed the screen size of a normal laptop. If a list is very long, however, readability becomes an issue and such a list should be sub-divided into sections of moreorless equal length.

If the sub-section heading is a year range, it must comply with MOS:YEARRANGE – for example, "1801–1825" is a correctly formatted range. Incorrect formats include "1801 – 1825" (no spaces), "1801-1825" (no hyphens) and "1801 to 1825" (no words).

It is not always practical to use a year range because of doubts about when the first sub-section begins and how the last one ends. If there are a number of BCE events in a list, it may be wise to place them in a single sub-section headed "Before the Common Era (BCE)" and follow it with a sub-section headed "1 AD–1200" (1200 is just an example, not to be applied literally), so that there is a clear split between BC/BCE and AD/CE. It should be remembered that the titles of all articles about BCE years carry the suffix BC and articles about CE years to 150 (plus some later ones) carry the prefix AD.

Years with three-digit, two-digit or one-digit numbers must be aligned with the four-digit numbers in the same sub-section. This is achieved by using Template:0 before the year number once, twice or three times respectively. For example:

Before Common Era

• 1100 BC –
• 0480 BC –
• 0044 BC –
• 0004 BC –

Common Era

• 0006 –
• 0055 –
• 0476 –
• 1066 –

The end period in a list will always be to the present day and consideration must be given to the range of the end period. If it should be the 21st century from 1 January 2001, then the sub-section could be headed simply "21st century". An acceptable alternative would be "2001–present" and this format would apply if the end period is, for example, "1991–present" or "2011–present". While a heading like "2011–" is not incorrect, it is preferable to include "present" to avoid any ambiguity. Do not, however, use an end of range year in the final sub-section – for example, a range ending 2020 excludes 2021.

If feasible, it is probably best that a year range should consist of whole centuries like "1201–1500". If, however, one part of a century has a long list of items, then split the century into two or more sub-sections as in "1801–1850", "1851–1860" and "1861–1900". Because of recentism, the 20th and 21st centuries present considerable difficulties with birth and death lists that have become overgrown with non-noteworthy subjects. In many articles, the 20th century will need to be split unevenly and so successive ranges might be "1946–1960", "1961–1965" and "1966–1990". The whole point about splitting lists into sub-sections is to present our readers with something that is sensible and above all READABLE. Splitting a list of 150 births into sub-sections of three, seventeen and 130 items is neither sensible nor (the third one) readable. Sub-sections and their headings must be tailored to the individual needs of each of the 366 articles.

Later sections per article

The project page needs to summarise these sections and templates along the following lines:

The sections are Holidays and observances, References, Bibliography (optional) and External links plus the {{commons}} and {{months}} templates.

Holidays and observances is, in effect, a mandatory section as all 366 articles include it. These tend to be single lists but it is recommended that they are split between "Christian feast days" and "Others". There is usually a majority of Christian events in each list. It is preferable to utilise the day's Eastern Liturgics link rather than list them here. "Others" is non-exhaustive but could be a third section if, for instance, a day has numerous events related to one country that could all go into a sub-section under the name of the country.

References is mandatory. It uses the reflist function to ensure that all inline citations are formatted and displayed in a numbered list.

Bibliography is entirely optional. It is rarely needed as most books and journals are sourced individually within inline citations. If, however, a particular book should be used to source several entries in the same article, the full citation details may be listed here via Template:Cite book, while Template:Sfn is used inline to provide the necessary linkage.

All 366 articles have four "on this day" sites as external links so the EL section is, in effect, mandatory. If additional external links are desired, please mention them at the project talk page first.

The commons and months templates are mandatory and are located below the External links heading. The months template is especially useful as it activates a display of all 366 dates to assist project navigation.

Each article concludes with a defaultsort (article title) and two categories which are "Category:Days of the year" and "Category:name of month". These must not be amended or removed.

Signing off

That's it, although I'm sure there is much that other people could add. I will keep a watch on this topic but I don't intend to take part in any discussion unless someone should ask me a direct question, especially if any clarification should be needed. I hope this is useful. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy persons and events

Both the test of time and births and deaths guidelines stipulate that being newsworthy is not necessarily noteworthy, and the same must apply to anyone who meets GNG or an SNG. As part of the drive to bring articles up to standard, I think we need to be ruthless with birthdays of sportspeople who haven't done something exceptional.

My sport is football and I'd say, as a rule of thumb, that a footballer must be a long-term international for one of the countries which regularly appears in the World Cup (not just the winners but also Netherlands, Croatia, Mexico, Japan, etc.) and/or have played long-term for one of the major European or South American clubs like Liverpool, Barcelona, Boca Juniors, etc. For example, I've just found a source for Santi Cazorla who obviously qualifies on both counts. On the other hand, I've removed the entries for Ryan France and Olly Lancashire!

You can easily apply similar benchmarks to other top sports such as boxing, baseball, cricket, chess, athletics, golf, NFL, tennis, etc. The individual sports like golf and athletics have their major tournaments, Olympic and world champions. I think, though, that we should remove participants in minor sports such as rugby league, squash, badminton, polo, tiddleywinks and what have you unless, like Birgit Fischer, they have done something really exceptional. Taking rugby league as an example, there's no doubt that someone has been purposely adding its players to these articles and so you see people like Keegan Hipgrave in the lists – there are no less than TEN rugby league players at 1 January alone.

Happy to discuss. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Change to structure of DOY pages

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template#Subsections about a possible change to the structure of these articles and the template. Please participate. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been through all the DOY articles now, and added the sub-headings as agreed in Toddst1's discussion. I was lazy inasmuch as I used a standard - (hyphen) instead of the – (endash), but I notice that Azbridge has been replacing those. Thanks, Azbridge! I've also cleaned up all (I think) bare URLs, but please let me know if you find any others. My next task, if there are no objections, is to remove/move some superfluous text from the article's lead section, e.g. this - "It is the last day of the first quarter of the year." in March 31. This is neither an event, nor a birth, nor a death. One could just as much say that January 31 is the last day of the first one-twelfth of the year. If there is some merit to this text, I'll move it to a section near the bottom of the article. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Relevant thread

I thought I'd bring folks' attention to a thread on Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year discussing a major improvement to this project. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Request an edit to a Template

I posted this at the (General) Wikipedia Help Desk. I was directed to come here, to this page. My original post is here ---> Wikipedia:Help desk#Article for April 7 date. It states:

I was reading the article for the April 7 date ... located here ---> April 7. I wanted to make an edit to the introductory paragraph. When I hit the "Edit" button, there was really nothing to edit. It just listed a bunch of templates. So, I imagine that the entire template itself needs to be edited ... and that said edit would subsequently appear in all "date"-type of articles (not just the April 7 article). So, my question: what Talk Page do I need to go to? Here? Or somewhere else? This is my specific edit / question. The article states: 268 days remain until the end of the year.. I thought that sentences are not supposed to start with numbers. So, it would have to be re-worded to something like: A total of 268 days remain until the end of the year. (or some such wording). (Am I correct about that rule of grammar?) What needs to be done? Thanks.

So, I was told (at that Help Desk) that this involves the Template {{Day}} ... and I was referred to this Talk Page. How can we fix / address this error? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The guideline is MOS:NUMNOTES which stays starting a sentence with a number should be avoided. There has been some prior discussion at Template talk:Day. MB 19:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that Mjroots made on the Help Desk that we could replace the full stop at the end of the previous sentence with a semicolon. Having looked at it I think that the edit to the template is fairly straightforward but we should get consensus here first as to how, if at all, it should be changed. Wham2001 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that it definitely needs to be changed. It is improper (and "jarring") to start a sentence with numbers. I am fine with the semi-colon suggestion. Or any other reasonable suggestion. I find it hard to believe that all 365 (rather, 366) pages about "Days" have maintained this grammatical error for so many years now. Please, let's fix it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and fixed it. Mjroots (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Interview

Hi everyone, I've really enjoyed reading WikiProject interviews over the years and now I'm taking a stab at conducting them. If anyone's interested in being interviewed, feel free to contribute here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject days of the year interview draft. It's a great way to educate others about your WikiProject and perhaps get help or new contributors if you need it. I'll see how we go but aim to wrap this up around July 20th.

I invite anyone interested to contribute and look forward to hearing from you, Tom (LT) (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping to some active editors in the last year (please ping anyone else who I've missed, apologies!): @No Great Shaker, @Toddst1, @Joseph A. Spadaro, @Wham2001, @Mjroots, @MB, Willbb234. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Dunno of @Deb: got pinged. She's a stalwart contributor. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Hopefully this interview will be next in next month's Signpost. Please feel free to contribute responses to the draft here (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report) until August 20th or so. Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Published

Hi everyone, the interview was published! A template link to the interview (can be archived or placed on this page) is above. Many thanks to @Willbb234, Toddst1, and Suonii180: for contributing their time. For those who contributed, if you'd like you can post a little icon at the top of your talk page to the interview using this code: {{Signpost user topicon|article_name = WikiProject Report|date = September 2021|wikilink = Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-08-29/WikiProject report|action = was interviewed in}}. Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Change to day template

This is a note to notify WikiProject members that I've slightly altered Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template to follow MOS:DATERANGE; this was probably a mistake in formatting that has been perpetuated over hundreds of pages. All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)