Misplaced Pages

talk:Selected anniversaries/March 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Selected anniversaries Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:07, 4 March 2004 editJengod (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users139,159 edits :Please feel free to search March 4 for items that have reasonably full articles and the possibility of pictures, and update at will--← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:45, 5 March 2022 edit undoHolly Cheng (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators116,585 edits →2022 notes: new section 
(33 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SelAnnivTalk}}

This is terrible. 5 events, 4 of them are USA-centric!!! -- ] 09:01, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC) This is terrible. 5 events, 4 of them are USA-centric!!! -- ] 09:01, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
:Please feel free to search ] for items that have reasonably full articles and the possibility of pictures, and update at will. We try very hard to be non-Amerocentric, but sometimes the material Misplaced Pages makes available means that's impossible. Your assistance on the selected anniversaries project would be appreciated. ] 09:07, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC) :Please feel free to search ] for items that have reasonably full articles and the possibility of pictures, and update at will. We try very hard to be non-Amerocentric, but sometimes the material Misplaced Pages makes available means that's impossible. Your assistance on the selected anniversaries project would be appreciated. ] 09:07, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

::I've already done that. Somebody needs to add non-US qualifying items to that page. --]
:::No, Mav, honey, I know ''you'' have. I'm saying just that. If the pages aren't updated with non-American stuff, we don't have non-American stuff to update with period. It's not part of our gigantic bias for the U.S. :) ] 19:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

: How about the election in ], making ''']''' the first PM of <s>the soon-to-come-into-existense Republic of</s> ] ? I'll put that in later...-- ] 21:37, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC) --(Correction) ] 14:14, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

==moved from ]==

Forget some urban legend about the US Presidency. This should really be on the main page:

*] - In ], the first ] meets, putting the ] into effect.

Thanks, ] (]) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

: The switch from ] to ] appears to be a boring paperwork procedure to me. For ], I'd rather save this for ] on September 17. That's the day people remember these days. --] (]) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Re-iterating what I wrote last year.
:::::] &ndash; ] ] granted ] ] a charter for the ''']'''.
:::Is all well and good, but this is more important. And it's much more than "paperwork procedure", it's the difference between a failed government and one that turns 220 today. Without the new government, there'd be no Constitution, no President Washington, etc. The mind boggles.
:::So, please consider including. Best, ] (]) 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

::::As stated on ], "Ideally, any particular selected article should only be listed (be an '''emboldened''' entry) once in this queue". The ] article is already an emboldened entry on ] because, as ] stated, it coincides with ]. Therefore do you know any alternative article to bold for that 1789 event? Also, as implied on the first question of the FAQ post above this talk page, we do not automatically fulfill requests to switch entries just because a user says that an event is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed. Cheers. ] ] 05:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Probably we can bold ] and/or ]. I can probably list it in the ] for now so it is available, especially when we need to "unhide one to balance the text of the Main Page". Cheers. ] ] 05:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

::Maybe I've been trumpeting the wrong emphasis. How's this:
:::]- The ''']''' opens in ], marking the start of the ] under the ].
::? This gets the important event across without doubling the Constitution event. Cheers, ] (]) 18:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

== 2012 notes ==

*Moved to Ineligible: ] (Chicago is ]), ] (maintenance), ] (maintenance)
*Omitted: ], ], ], ]
*Included: ] (4th appearance, last in 2010), ] (3rd appearance, last in 2006), ] (first appearance), ] (first appearance)
*Repeats: ] (2nd consecutive appearance, 2 total)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

== 2013 notes ==

*Rescued from Ineligible (unused): ]; ]
*New articles (unused): ]
*Omitted: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (6th appearance, last in 2010; rescued from Ineligible); ] (first appearance); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2011); ] (first appearance; 80th anniversary); ] (6th appearance, last in 2011); ] (first appearance)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 20:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The Frances Perkins item should read {{quote|] – ''']''' ''(pictured)'' was appointed ], making her the first female member of the ]. Today is also the 100th anniversary of the Department's founding.}}
--]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:Sorry, that doesn't work. Although we frequently have blurbs with multiple articles in bold, those are for when those articles are both related to the event in question (or in at least one case there were two battles in the same war on the same day). In this case, you actually want to put two different events for two different things that happened in two different years (Perkins' appointment in 1933, plus department's founding in 1913). There's no way to squeeze those two together without it being awkward. Furthermore, the ] article is tagged for expansion, so it's not eligible to be a bold article anyway. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
*Thanks! --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

== 2014 notes ==

*Deleted: ] (date not in article, and blurb is also factually incorrect); ] (too obscure)
*Moved to Ineligible: ] (maintenance)
*Rescued from Ineligible (unused): ] (blurb previously featured ], which is currently ineligible); ]
*Omitted: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (3rd appearance, last in 2012); ] (first appearance; 200th anniversary); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2009); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2004; rescued from Ineligible; 70th anniversary); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2010)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 07:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

== 2015 notes ==

*Omitted: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (2nd appearance, last in 2011); ] (4th appearance, last in 2007); ] (3rd appearance, last in 2013); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2011); ] (7th appearance, last in 2013)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

== 2016 notes ==

*Deleted: ] (blurb fact is not really true)
*Omitted: ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (7th appearance, last in 2010; rescued from Ineligible); ] (5th appearance, last in 2012); ] (first appearance; 75th anniversary); ] (3rd appearance, last in 2014)
*Repeats: ] (2nd consecutive appearance, 3 total)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 07:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

== Inclusion of bios in birth/death section ==

TRM and I seem to differ on the criteria for including biographies in the birth/death slot. I think it's anyone who has a WP article and hence added Bobbi Brown, however TRM has removed this twice on the grounds that she hasn't achieved anything, isn't encyclopedic and doesn't do anything for women. Can we have a discussion about this as this sets a precedent for other biographies to be excluded on similar grounds. Or do the guidelines need to be adapted to include TRM's criteria, in which case every nomination is going to be up for subjective discussion. Why can't we include all 3 biographies nominated for this day? ] (])

== 2017 notes ==

*Moved to Ineligible: ] (maintenance)
*Rescued from Ineligible (unused): ]
*Omitted: ]; ] (ineligible—maintenance); ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (4th appearance, last in 2014); ] (3rd appearance, last in 2014); ] (3rd appearance, last in 2015); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2012; 30th anniversary); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2013; 10th anniversary); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (3rd appearance, last in 2014; shouldn't have been included as article already appears on ])
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 06:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

== 2018 notes ==

*Moved to Ineligible: ] (maintenance)
*New articles (unused): ]
*Rescued from Ineligible (unused): ]
*Omitted: ] (ineligible—maintenance); ]; ]; ]; ]; ] (deleted; normally appears on ]); ]; ]
*Included: ] (4th appearance, last in 2016); ] (first appearance; rescued from Ineligible); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance)
*Repeats: ] (2nd consecutive appearance, 5 total; 100th anniversary)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 01:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

== 2019 notes ==

*Rescued from Ineligible (unused): ]
*Omitted: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (first appearance); ] (6th appearance, last in 2016; 250th anniversary); ] (4th appearance, last in 2015); ] (3rd appearance, last in 2014); ] (4th appearance, last in 2016); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance)
*Repeats: ] (2nd consecutive appearance, 2 total; 500th birthday)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

== 2020 notes ==

*Deleted: ] (moved to ])
*Omitted: ]; ] (deleted—not a good date for this); ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (rescued from Ineligible); ] (8th appearance, last in 2016; rescued from Ineligible); ] (4th appearance, last in 2017); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 16:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

== 2021 notes ==

*New articles (ineligible): ] (])
*New articles (unused): ]
*Omitted: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (5th appearance, last in 2017); ] (first appearance); ] (5th appearance, last in 2018); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2016; 80th anniversary); ] (5th appearance, last in 2019); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance; 100th birthday)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 18:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

== 2022 notes ==

*Rescued from Ineligible (unused): ]
*Omitted: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
*Included: ] (first appearance); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2018); ] (first appearance); ] (first appearance); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2018; 10th anniversary); ] (3rd appearance, last in 2021; also appeared on ], her death anniversary; 90th birthday); ] (2nd appearance, last in 2018; 50th anniversary)
*Repeats: ] (2nd consecutive appearance, 2 total; 850th anniversary)
<span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:45, 5 March 2022

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for making suggestions or discussing improvements to Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/March 4.

  • To report an error when this list is currently on the Main Page, see Main Page errors. Please remember that this list defers to the supporting articles, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
  • Before making a suggestion, please read the selected anniversaries guidelines. Please remember that this list usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
  • To discuss improvements to the corresponding March 4 article, see Talk:March 4 instead.
? Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is , an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed, not posted?
A1: Relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted. Any given day of the year can have a great many important or significant historical events. The problem is that there is generally only room on the Main Page to list about 5 events at a time, so not everything can be posted.
As stated on Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Main Page, the items and events posted on the Main Page are chosen based more on how well they are written, not based on how much important or significant their subjects are. It is easier for admins to select a well-written, cited, verifiable article over a poor one versus trying to determine objectively how much a subject is important or significant.
Keep in mind that the quality requirements only apply to the selected bolded article, not the other links. Thus, an event may qualify for multiple dates in a year if there is an article written in a summary style and an article providing detailed content; if one of those pages have cleanup issues, the other page can be bolded as an alternate.
Another criterion is to maintain some variety of topics, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism, or the belief that the world stops at the edge of the English-speaking world. Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure. In addition, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled featured article or featured picture.
Q2: There are way too many 20th-century events listed. Why aren't there more events from the 19th century and before?
A2: The short, basic reason is the systemic bias of Misplaced Pages. There are not enough good, well-written articles on 19th-century and earlier events for all 365 days in the year. Currently, a majority of users seem to be generally more interested in writing articles about recent events. If you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q3: This page seems to be biased toward events based in . What can be done about it?
A3: This again is attributed to the systemic bias of Misplaced Pages. Many users are generally more interested in working on good, well-written articles pertaining to their home country. Since this is the English Misplaced Pages, there will be more English-speaking users, and thus more articles pertaining to English-speaking countries. And if there are more users who are from the United States, there will probably be more well-written articles about events based in the United States. Again, if you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q4: Why is the birthday/death anniversary of not listed?
A4: There are only four slots available for birth and death anniversaries. As with the events, article quality and diversity in time period, geography, and reason for notability are all contributing factors in whether an article gets selected for inclusion.
Q5: Are the holidays/observances listed in any particular order?
A5: Yes, there is a specified order: International observances first, then alphabetically by where observed.
Q6: Some of the holidays/observances that are listed have dates in parentheses beside them. What do they mean?
A6: There are two reasons that some holidays/observances have dates next to them:
  • Non-Gregorian-based holidays/observances are marked with the current year as a reminder to others that their dates do in fact vary from year to year.
  • National Days, Independence Days, and other holidays celebrating the nationhood of a country are generally marked by the year of the significant historic date being observed.
Today's featured article for March 4, 2025
Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 4, 2025

create – talk – watch

Picture of the day for March 4, 2025

The featured picture for this day has not yet been chosen.

In general, pictures of the day are scheduled in order of promotion to featured status. See Misplaced Pages:Picture of the day/Guidelines for full guidelines.

← Misplaced Pages talk:Selected anniversaries/March 3 * Misplaced Pages talk:Selected anniversaries/March 5 →

This is terrible. 5 events, 4 of them are USA-centric!!! -- Kaihsu 09:01, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Please feel free to search March 4 for items that have reasonably full articles and the possibility of pictures, and update at will. We try very hard to be non-Amerocentric, but sometimes the material Misplaced Pages makes available means that's impossible. Your assistance on the selected anniversaries project would be appreciated. jengod 09:07, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
I've already done that. Somebody needs to add non-US qualifying items to that page. --mav
No, Mav, honey, I know you have. I'm saying just that. If the pages aren't updated with non-American stuff, we don't have non-American stuff to update with period. It's not part of our gigantic bias for the U.S. :) jengod 19:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
How about the election in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, making Robert Mugabe the first PM of the soon-to-come-into-existense Republic of Zimbabwe ? I'll put that in later...-- PFHLai 21:37, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC) --(Correction) PFHLai 14:14, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

moved from Talk:Main Page

Forget some urban legend about the US Presidency. This should really be on the main page:

Thanks, Mdiamante (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The switch from Congress of the Confederation to United States Congress appears to be a boring paperwork procedure to me. For United States Constitution, I'd rather save this for Constitution Day (United States) on September 17. That's the day people remember these days. --PFHLai (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-iterating what I wrote last year.
1681 – King Charles II of England granted Quaker William Penn a charter for the Pennsylvania Colony.
Is all well and good, but this is more important. And it's much more than "paperwork procedure", it's the difference between a failed government and one that turns 220 today. Without the new government, there'd be no Constitution, no President Washington, etc. The mind boggles.
So, please consider including. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
As stated on WP:OTD, "Ideally, any particular selected article should only be listed (be an emboldened entry) once in this queue". The United States Constitution article is already an emboldened entry on Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/September 17 because, as PFHLai stated, it coincides with Constitution Day (United States). Therefore do you know any alternative article to bold for that 1789 event? Also, as implied on the first question of the FAQ post above this talk page, we do not automatically fulfill requests to switch entries just because a user says that an event is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably we can bold United States Congress and/or Congress of the Confederation. I can probably list it in the hidden, backup list for now so it is available, especially when we need to "unhide one to balance the text of the Main Page". Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I've been trumpeting the wrong emphasis. How's this:
1789- The First United States Congress opens in New York City, marking the start of the current government under the Constitution.
? This gets the important event across without doubling the Constitution event. Cheers, Mdiamante (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2012 notes

—howcheng {chat} 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2013 notes

—howcheng {chat} 20:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Frances Perkins item should read

1933 – Frances Perkins (pictured) was appointed United States Secretary of Labor, making her the first female member of the Cabinet. Today is also the 100th anniversary of the Department's founding.

--evrik  19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't work. Although we frequently have blurbs with multiple articles in bold, those are for when those articles are both related to the event in question (or in at least one case there were two battles in the same war on the same day). In this case, you actually want to put two different events for two different things that happened in two different years (Perkins' appointment in 1933, plus department's founding in 1913). There's no way to squeeze those two together without it being awkward. Furthermore, the United States Department of Labor article is tagged for expansion, so it's not eligible to be a bold article anyway. —howcheng {chat} 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

2014 notes

—howcheng {chat} 07:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

2015 notes

—howcheng {chat} 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

2016 notes

—howcheng {chat} 07:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of bios in birth/death section

TRM and I seem to differ on the criteria for including biographies in the birth/death slot. I think it's anyone who has a WP article and hence added Bobbi Brown, however TRM has removed this twice on the grounds that she hasn't achieved anything, isn't encyclopedic and doesn't do anything for women. Can we have a discussion about this as this sets a precedent for other biographies to be excluded on similar grounds. Or do the guidelines need to be adapted to include TRM's criteria, in which case every nomination is going to be up for subjective discussion. Why can't we include all 3 biographies nominated for this day? MurielMary (talk)

2017 notes

—howcheng {chat} 06:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

2018 notes

—howcheng {chat} 01:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

2019 notes

—howcheng {chat} 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

2020 notes

—howcheng {chat} 16:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

2021 notes

—howcheng {chat} 18:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

2022 notes

—howcheng {chat} 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)