Misplaced Pages

talk:Selected anniversaries - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 3 March 2017 (→Criteria for inclusion: oh ok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:53, 3 March 2017 by The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) (→Criteria for inclusion: oh ok)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This talk page is for general discussions for Selected anniversaries. Shortcut
  • To suggest a new item, in most cases you can be bold and edit the specific Selected anniversaries page directly. Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before making your edit. However, if your addition may be controversial, or on a day that is or soon will be on the Main Page, please post your suggestion here or on the specific Selected anniversaries talk page instead.
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Misplaced Pages talk:Contents. For more information on Misplaced Pages's contents system as a whole, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contents.

To make sure articles are not selected (bolded item) more than once, search for the article's name at Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/All.

Note about use of 'this day in history'-type data sources:

Do be careful when adding entries to the selected anniversary page and their corresponding day, year and subject articles. Many of the events listed on the day pages come from data obtained from other similar lists on the Internet. I have found that most of those lists contain many inaccurate and flat-out wrong data. Last year I was able to expand and fix about half of all the day pages and found that my major data source (OnThisDay.com) was at least subtly wrong or had spurious events that could not be confirmed 1/5–1/3 of the time. I therefore spent a few hours on every day page I worked on checking facts and then updating the corresponding year and subject articles.

  • My guess is that most, if not the great majority, of these 'day in history'-type website lists swap data back and forth via rewrites that are not checked for accuracy. In time errors must creep in—just like a huge game of telephone.
  • Some entries on these websites seem to totally confuse Julian and Gregorian dates (even converting Julian dates to Gregorian for dates that happened before the Gregorian Calendar was adopted!).
  • Other websites seem to have added events to specific days when the exact day the event actually happened on is not known at all (most of these guesses are placed on the 1st and the 15th of months on these websites).

In short, please check any fact obtained from these type of websites and also check any fact on our own day pages before updating its corresponding year or subject article. --mav (talk)

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


The Day We Fight Back

Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to help craft a proposal

Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Misplaced Pages to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from members of this Wikiproject would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Misplaced Pages Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bimillennial - how to mark?

I've just edited the death of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, into the entry for August 19, because the year he died was AD14, so this year (2014) is the 2000th (Bimillennial) anniversary - and because it's a good article (FA-grade, high importance).

Do we have some special way of marking 'big number' anniversaries? Do we say "2000 years ago" or something?

--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to the correct location. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@User:Howcheng - many thanks! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

OTD/TFA duplicate

Two-cent piece is schedule for both tomorrow's TFA and tomorrow's OTD. See WP:ERRORS. If no one replaces it or says not to do so by 23:00 tomorrow, I will simply remove it from OTD. --ThaddeusB (talk)

RMS Empress of Ireland

The RMS Empress of Ireland sank on 29 May 1914.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Franz Ferdinand

This may not be the correct place to post this, but I assume OTD for June 28 will include the momentous assassination of Franz & Sophie that led, alas, to WWI (which led directly to WWII) —

  • '1914 – Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and his wife Sophie are assassinated in Sarajevo by Bosnia Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip, the casus belli of World War I.
Sca (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as how it's the 100th anniversary, it will definitely be there (assuming no article maintenance issues, or that a related item is not FA/POTD). —howcheng {chat} 19:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And yet "Seeing as how it's the 100th anniversary, it will definitely be there" did not apply to the invasion of Belgium and the start of WW1. A more robust system than "Let's hope someone thinks to suggest it." Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Location for birth/death anniversaries

It seems rather strange to me to put the centenaries of a birth/death in the Holidays/Observances section, as was done for Bhaktivinoda Thakur on Misplaced Pages:Selected_anniversaries/June_23, 2014. It's not like it's the 100th anniversary of his death every year, and it doesn't sound like the day of his death is celebrated as a holiday in any locality, so to call it a Holiday/Observance seems off. I would have instead expected to find it listed in the Events section, like how Cinosaur did it in a previous version. There doesn't sound like there's any policy about the matter, though. Should there be? -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's standard practice to put the birth/death anniversary there. Examples: Melchora Aquino, Glenn T. Seaborg. —howcheng {chat} 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

World War I Centenary

This year marks the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War. Unfortunately most of the critical events, with the exception of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand noted above, that lead up to the outbreak of the war have been missed. Today is the anniversary of the invasion of neutral Belgium and Britain's subsequent declaration of war on Germany. If there is a more consequential military event between the Battle of Waterloo and today, I am unaware of it. Is there some way we can perhaps make a special effort to keep an eye out for Word War I related events so that at least the more significant ones get some mention? This is not intended as a shot across anyone's bow. But I do think it is a bit regrettable that Misplaced Pages pretty much missed the anniversary of the outbreak of the Great War. I will try to keep an eye on the calendar for 1914 and get word out when I see things. Help would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Alhaji Grunshi would be a good one for 7 August. 89.242.88.157 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

An issue with process has been raised

Dear colleagues,

I've noticed (and briefly contributed to) a related thread on the talkpage of one of our most experienced and respected gnomes, Colonies Chris. The discussion apparently concerns possible lack of scrutiny of redirects before the just-in-time posting of OTDs by rotation from a library. Colonies Chris clearly doesn't want this permanent responsibility, and seems to be hinting that shared, possibly rotating, responsibility among the administrators here would be proper.

Your opinions would be welcome. Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested to Chris, I've checked all the listed OTDs from now until about mid-October and fixed the kinds of things Chris sends to ERRORS. Took me, ooh, half an hour. In mid-October I'll happily donate another half an hour to get us through to Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
TRM, sounds great! Tony (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Image size flexibility?

The better img at 100x100?
The better img at 65x100?

The guideline says images are to be 100x100px maximum, and I just went to some trouble to produce a special crop optimized for those dimensions, but then I saw that in a previous year a larger image was used (apparently 150 tall and about 100 wide). Are occasional exceptions allowed? Or, if that's an aberration, would it make sense to change the guideline from

The image should be no more than 100px wide and 100px high

to something like

The image should be no more than 10,000 pixels in area‍—‌typically 100x100px but possibly, for example, 150x65px. (Neither dimension should be greater than 200px.)

-- since, after all, it's really only area that counts, within reason. For example, if the 100x100 specification is rigid, I'd use one image, but if I could use 65x150 I'd use another -- see right. (If you don't know who this is and what he's holding, see Phineas Gage.)

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Those who want to quibble about "pixels" vs. "square pixels" and so on, please just edit the above the way you want -- I don't want to hear about it.

Anyone? Anyone at all? EEng (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

David Jewett Waller, Sr.

The article for David Jewett Waller, Sr. is currently listed in the eligible hooks list for January 26. Can whoever is in charge please make sure that it runs on the upcoming January 26, 2015, since the article won't be eligible again until 2093 due to the current rules on biographies and centennials. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this guy is notable enough for inclusion as a birth/death anniversary. —howcheng {chat} 17:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Howcheng: From the article: By the time of his death, he was one of the most well-known people in northeastern Pennsylvania. And how many centennials can there be per day? --Jakob (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but he's too provincial. If he were one of the most well-known people in the US, I'd have no problem with including him. —howcheng {chat} 09:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

How to make suggestions

From the Project page it's unclear how editors can suggest articles to the selection panel for inclusion on OTD, or are such suggestions unnecessary as long as the suggested article appears in WP:DAYS? Thanks. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll add something to the project page, but the gist of it is:
  1. Be bold and add it directly to the day in question.
  2. Add it to the talk page of the day.
—howcheng {chat} 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting proposal

Hello all, I thought this proposal from Inspire might interest everyone who follows this page. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Tokyo subway sarin attack

I'm surprised we aren't covering this 20 year anniversary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough

The article has an orange-level maintenance tag and is generally lacking sources, which is likely why it was left off the list. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

April 30, May 7

Yes, I know this isn't the approved way to make suggestions, but I haven't fared well in previous attempts to follow the directions.

Two imminent, historically significant anniversaries that definitely should be included in OTD:

  • April 30 – 70th anniversary of Hitler's suicide in 1945 in the Berlin chancellery bunker, presaging the end of WWII in Europe.
  • May 7 – 100th anniversary of the torpedoing of the RMS Lusitania, which precipitated a crisis in U.S.-German relations and led to a suspension of unrestricted U-boat warfare.

Sca (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitler's suicide is covered. RMS Lusitania will likely make it in unless the article gets a maintenance tag slapped on it in the next week. —howcheng {chat} 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Howcheng, thanks. One more that occurred to me as I looked at calendar:
  • April 30 – 40th anniversary of fall of Saigon to Communist forces, ending Vietnam War. (This should not displace Hitler's suicide, though.)
Sca (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I already got that one. —howcheng {chat} 22:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Xcllnt. Sca (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sca: The Sinking of the Lusitania is TFA for 2015 so Sinking of the RMS Lusitania isn't going to be included after all. —howcheng {chat} 10:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the thoughtful note. Sca (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can an article be in both OTD and picture?

I went to Misplaced Pages talk:Selected anniversaries/June 15 to suggest the Magna Carta article as it will the 800th anniversary on 15 June 2015, however I see it has already been selected as the featured picture for that day. Can an article appear in more than one section of the main page? Some of us had been working on getting it to FA so that it could be TFA on that day - this is now unlikely to happen - but does mean that it is in pretty good shape. NB this article has been a selected anniversary in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2013 - but I don't know if having appeared previously makes it more or less likely to appear?— Rod 15:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

International Lefthanders Day

International Lefthanders Day is August 13.—Wavelength (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible separate entity, wikialmanac?

OK, So this probably isn't the best idea anyone here has ever heard of, but I don't see any evidence that anyone has ever proposed a separate almanac type WF entity, which might, for instance, have portal-type pages for various countries or cities or topics or academic disciplines or whatever with a "today in history" or "this week in history" or similar structure listing the various items of historical significance which have occurred in the field of that portal's topic in the time period specified. Personally, as someone who does a lot of editing on religion and/or Christianity type topics, I could see maybe how it might possibly generate maybe a bit more attention to our articles here, as well as provide a bit of a service to the relevant church groups, if we were able to set up pages displaying the daily entries of various liturgical calendars, which could be used by the relevant religious communities to more easily set up "dial-a-saint" or "dial-a-prayer" type services. It might also maybe make it a bit easier and/or more likely to develop the relevant articles on the various entries for the coming week or month, perhaps particularly bringing in some of the ministers who might use or link to the information in their own dial-a-prayer/dial-a-saint service, or their Facebook pages, or whatever. Again, personally, I think the places most likely to maybe see some development might be the smaller churches (like, for instance, not the Catholics, but the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and, among the Catholics, the entries in either the specific calendars of countries or families of religious orders but not the main universal calendar.

For other topics, like, for instance, Montana or New York City or whatever, there are a few reference books of the "this day in history" type, and relevant entries from them in the topical portals, and, maybe, add a few entries for members of a relevant "Hall of Fame" or similar entities, where they exist, which aren't mentioned in those books.

Anyway, any responses? John Carter (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The place you want to be asking is probably Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Days of the year rather than here, as that's where the people likely to be interested in taking part will be found.
Would it not make more sense just to add category dividers to the existing January 1, January 2 … December 31 pages on Misplaced Pages, rather than have a whole separate project? The immediate drawback I can see is that very few editors are likely to be interested in maintaining it, so it would be likely to go out of date very quickly, and to be overrun with people adding their own birthdays. ‑ iridescent 19:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. Feedback is welcome. Please stop by and let us know what you think about the placement of the various features ("Today's featured article", "In the news", "Did you know", etc.) The Transhumanist 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bach cantata

I am new to OTD, have no time to read it all, brought a Bach cantata to GAN status, Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51, review in progress. It's a popular piece by a great composer and was - as far as we know - first performed on 17 September 1730. Due to health issues, I couldn't get it ready for the DYK section soon enough as I had planned. Any chance for this section, just one year for a change of topic? If yes, how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The article quality appears to be decent, but there's nothing in the text to indicate how popular the work is. Admittedly, I'm not a classical music aficionado, but it's not one that I've heard of before, and there are no audio samples so I can't even say if I recognize it. If it's a minor work, I'm reluctant to include it. —howcheng {chat} 00:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a major work, but I have no time to argue, don't like these claims such as "the most popular", as some sources say, - just forget it then, - Bach wrote it for "any time", so I leave it to the DYK process, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not doubting you... I'm just saying the article should make that clear. —howcheng {chat} 18:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Glorification of Crime, War, politics, serial killers,

OTD doesn't give much importance to Movie stars, Nobel Prize winners, Philanthropists.

I don't see "On this day Walt Disney"got academy award. On This day Charlie Chaplin's movie was released. On this day Hillary and Norgay climbed Everest. On this day Jenner found vaccine. On this day Mother Teresa fot Nobel Prize. On this day Elvis Presley's album was released. On this Day Florence Nightangle did this. On this day "pictured above"invented electric bulb. On this day William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was performed for first time. On this day Alexander Fleming invented penicillin. On this day chemotherapy was invented. On this day Michael Faraday died. On this day Neil Armstrong landed on moon. On this day won't feture Bruce Lee, Neils Bohr type people. Glamorize all wild west criminals, serial killers, 1940s mobsters, 1920s gangsters, mafia dons..--112.79.38.219 (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are flat-out wrong. OTD has plenty of articles about science, exploration, religion, the arts, and pop culture. However, it doesn't feature every article every year. A lot of the topics you mentioned are already listed, but may not have been included this year. You may have to check the Staging Area on the day in question to find it. Other articles are ineligible due to maintenance required.
If you start at Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/January and go through the year, you'll see that we have a fairly wide variety of topics covered. —howcheng {chat} 16:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the examples above, but I also agree with the comment above there are a disproportionate number of entries on crime, killers and conflict, sometimes with exuberant wording. One example is discussed here. I looked through Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/All. As another example, I found seven entries on The Troubles, vastly disproportionate to the importance of the topic to readers across Misplaced Pages:
Individually, each item on crime, killers, conflict etc may be justified. I think the broader aspect, which needs broader discussion, is how to further improve the selected anniversaries project as a whole. Whizz40 (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I do try to not repeat the same topics within a short time span (you'll note that the Troubles did not appear both on December 4 and 6 last year). Exceptions get made for significant anniversaries, but I don't look at time spans more than say, 2 weeks. —howcheng {chat} 19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense Howard, thank you for responding and apologies for adding to the list of voices bringing up small points in the scheme of an overall great and well-scheduled project for the Main Page. For my part, I succeeded in helping move two or three entries from ineligible to eligible and adding one or two new ones. Just a thought, I wonder if there is a forum for trying to get a focus of lots of editors on doing this for a short period to pick up other quick wins and widen the range of eligible entries. Whizz40 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know of any such forum, myself. Some of the more active WikiProjects have a "collaboration of the week" kind of thing, but I doubt there is any central location. —howcheng {chat} 17:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oct 13 Paddington Blurb, from ERRORS

Paddington Bear was created by Michael Bond. As our article on the subject makes clear, the books were "illustrated by Peggy Fortnum and other artists". I think we've over-egged Fortnum's role in our blurb and suggest we remove her name. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. Peggy Fortnum is, far and away, the best known illustrator of Paddington Bear books. That a few of the books were occasionally illustrated by someone else doesn't remove her importance as an illustrator of the best known of them, and as the best known illustrator associated with the series. --Jayron32 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the current phrasing is unclear, as it doesn't distinguish between the author and illustrator. I suggest rephrasing as 'written by Michael Bond and illustrated by Peggy Fortnum'. That makes everything nice and clear and avoids either misrepresenting or omitting either contribution. Modest Genius 16:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

How about: "1958 – The first book featuring the character Paddington Bear (statue pictured), created by Michael Bond and primarily illustrated by Peggy Fortnum, was published."? It would be better (assuming it's true) to say "originally illustrated", but the article doesn't say that.

This is now off Main Page, so the discussion has moved here from ERRORS, but it's worth fixing now before it re-runs another year. --Dweller (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Queue

How/where can one view the OTD queue? Sca (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's say it's April: Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/April. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

William Shakespeare forgotten

In contrast to Google and even the French Misplaced Pages, there was nothing on the front page today on the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death which is being celebrated worldwide. I don't know who is responsible for recording anniversaries and ensuring that a suitable FA is displayed but this is a serious lapse.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, maybe you should have been responsible ;-) Nonetheless, as noted above for #World War I Centenary, there does seem to be a better process needed to catch these types of anniversaries. Whizz40 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The unreferenced section issue on Treaty of London (1839) has been resolved, which would have made eligible on WP:Selected anniversaries/August 4 one of the key entries on the start of the First World War. Had this been done two years ago, it would have addressed the issue raised above, if it was selected. Nonetheless, as noted in #Franz Ferdinand and here, we do seem to need a better process for identifying upcoming significant anniversaries and coordinating work needed to include relevant entries in the Selected anniversaries. Whizz40 (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death noted above, what would have been the best way of including this? It is listed on April 23#Deaths "1616 – William Shakespeare, English actor, playwright, and poet (b. 1564)" and Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries says "10. Births and natural deaths of notable people can be used only on centennials. Unnatural deaths (assassinations, accidents, etc) of notable figures may be used at any time." So would the best approach have been to create an entry on Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/April 23 and include a Talk page note proposing its inclusion for the 400th anniversary? Whizz40 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Found an answer to this at User talk:Howcheng#On This Day. Birth/death centennials are usually listed with the holidays/observances, for example "400th anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare". Whizz40 (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Making some bold updates to the project page to try to help clarify how editors can help with the project. If there is anything unclear or any questions about what text was changed please let me know. Hopefully all changes are logical, helpful and uncontroversial. Apologies in advance for any slip ups. Whizz40 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Updates made, please review and let me know any issues, hopefully everything has been thought through carefully and is okay. Whizz40 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully the changes also help with #How to make suggestions. Whizz40 (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Daft question?

Today's selection reads:

May 5: Feast of St George (Palestinians); Liberation Day in Denmark, Ethiopia, and the Netherlands; Yom HaShoah in Israel (2016); Cinco de Mayo in Mexico and the United States; National Day of Prayer in the United States (2016)

What's the significance of "(2016)" that appears for some entries and not others? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, from the Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries#"On this day" guidelines: "Non-Gregorian-based holidays and observances should be moved to the correct day for the current year.... These holidays and observances should also be marked with the current year in parentheses as an indicator to readers that observance on this day is specific to this year." Whizz40 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I see. That kind of makes sense. Except that the typical reader of our front page won't know that. I'm a very atypical reader and I didn't know that (or even know where to find that out) so for the regular visitor, it'll mean nothing but unnecessary confusion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

New Madrid Earthquakes

Today's 16 Dec OTD blurb says the quakes made the Mississippi River run backwards but the OTD article does not mention this. Why? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Experimental Breeder Reactor I

How did this article make it onto the front page? It is terrible, and the "fact" that appeared yesterday is arguably incorrect. --John (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ceres

Can the image of Ceres at least use one of the modern close-ups from Dawn? Using a blurry Hubble picture is not a good representation of any extraterrestrial object, especially if we have better imagery available. SounderBruce 04:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Proposal: Addition to OTD

Currently, ITN carries a small section for those who have recently died. OTD does not have a similar section for those who died on this day in history. Therefore I propose that a small section is added to the botttom of OTD entitled "Died on this day" or similar. It is to feature a maximum of three links to articles of people (or animals) that died on the day in question. Such article to be assessed at B class at minimum. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems we would need a "Born on this day" as well. If we do these both, we would have to go down to four blurbs as the standard (space permitting). Not sure I like that. —howcheng {chat} 16:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Howcheng: Born on this day is a good point. What about featuring one of each? How would that impact Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If we do everything on one line, that would probably work, so maybe we can fit two each per day (quality permitting). We might be able to make up the space by shortening the existing blurbs as well. I would suggest also that we have to be some sort of notability threshold, but I can see how that might become too subjective. Perhaps saying the B-quality minimum would be enough, as it would probably be difficult to write one about an obscure politician or musician. —howcheng {chat} 17:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to write a script that would display a random birth date and death date article from a list of approved articles? We've done such things before that randomly displayed links from a menu of links, so I'm pretty sure it can be done. That way, valid articles get highlighted on the appropriate day, but we could keep the whole thing on one line. Just a thought. --Jayron32 17:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see birthdays rather than deaths, with priority to milestone birthdays (if the subject is still living). There's enough death on the main page as it is. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Birthdays looks like a grand idea to me. Each year article (e.g. 2000) has a suitable that could be cherry-picked from, and while it may be a bit of work in the early stages, it'd be a good addition. I'd happily help out with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of working from the individual day articles, such as 3 February. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Either way, we should easily be able to sift some decent articles out. I'm in. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Firm proposal

Taking into account the above discussion, it would seem that the is a general consensus forming in favour of the proposal. Time for some firm details- OTD to have a "born" and "died" section, each containing a maximum of two links to people/animals that were born/died on the day in question. Eligible articles to be of B class and above. No article is to be listed again once it has appeared in either section (i.e. if appearing as a birth, cannot appear as a death on a different date). Those whose date of death is unknown are treated on a case by case basis (e.g. date last known to be alive, date officially declared dead, etc). Notability is demonstrated by having an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support I think I'll use my own judgement and common sense rather than try to stick to a rigid and incomplete set of criteria (e.g. I'd add no maintenance tags, no massive BLP violations etc but that's just something we should always do) but otherwise this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, great idea for births and deaths. There's a couple of tweaks we can do to lessen the column length impact: Lose the 'current date/ Reload the page' at the bottom of OTD, perhaps moving the date into the OTD header, and make the mainpage columns 50/50% rather than 55/45%. The names should probably have the year in brackets after, such as Born: Joe Blogs (1878). Died: John Smith (1982). But these are all details we can work out in due course. Stephen 23:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    You know, I've been doing OTD for 5 years now and I swear, I've never noticed the date and "reload this page" link. —howcheng {chat} 03:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, with one tweak for greater flexibility: set a maximum of four total links, comprising two "born" and two "died" links whenever feasible, but with the option of varying the ratio on dates with a shortage in one category and surplus in the other (if and when such a situation arises). —David Levy 02:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is a great idea that'll provide extra utility to the Main Page. Instead of sticking with the 'Born:' / 'Died:' leaders and almost requiring that there is one of each, maybe an annotation can be made with the date, thereby allowing for four births if no one of note deceased that day. I'd also like to see the entries in ascending date order, so this idea would facilitate that without requiring the rigid structure of "two and two". Joe Blogs (B:1878), John Smith (D:1982), Jeremy Johns (B:1988). -- NsTaGaTr (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Howcheng: - there have been no objections. Can you produce a mock-up of how this would look please? Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - sorry, just realised I hadn't added this. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Whizz40 was kind enough to make a mockup: User:Whizz40/sandbox. Feedback is appreciated. —howcheng {chat} 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the mockup, Whizz40. As it's a mockup, we'll ignore that three of the items would be ineligible. I think we need an extra blank line above the section, which would make it a bit clearer. Not sure we need to state what these people are known for. Not stating this might just arouse some curiosity in the reader and lead to a higher viewing figure (and thus more improvements to the article). Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think "born/died" is necessary, I think the text is self-explanatory, otherwise I'm okay with it. I have a vague concern that we'll have small issues over how to describe each individual in a few words without sometimes creating more heat than light, but that's a minor issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've sized it to a more realistic 45% width, and concur that we should lose 'born/died' and their description. Stephen
  • I agree that the 'born/died' text is unnecessary. I don't think the description is really needed either, as pointed out above. I'd go down the rabbit hole much quicker if I had to seek out the information myself than having it fed to me. Finally, do we want to stick with births first, then deaths, or list them all chronologically? - NsTaGaTr  22:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • From feedback so far I've removed born/died, removed the descriptions, no-wrapped the dates, and reordered by date (which for the examples is deaths then births). Looks tighter. Stephen 01:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I like that, it looks really good. Do 'we' maybe want to limit it to one line to try and avoid the wrap? That would probably limit it to three entries per day, which is a downside. - NsTaGaTr  15:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Howcheng - can we implement this from tomorrow. Suggest Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (b.1922) and Richard of Dover (d.1184) would be a good pair to start with. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is excellent. We will now need to make sure the OTD instructions are updated accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OTD instructions are updated. Please review. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 19:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Update

Just a quick note to say that the single B and single D added to the main page is going well. I've noted pageviews in excess of 3,000 for these individuals which is often better than a DYK hook, even pro rata. So that's a really nice result. We may like to think about moving to three or four items per day in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi all, just a query on this initiative - where are the admins selecting the b/d bios from? From the year pages? So that requires editors to manually add bios to the year page of the year that person was born/died? (I ask because I write a lot of biographical articles and I'd like to be sure that these articles get considered for this slot). Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as they're picked more than a day in advance, anyone can add them, not just admins. I've been doing it a bit, trying to mix up young and old, American and non-American, man and woman... I use the day articles, e.g. February 23 to select them, and review each one to ensure it is of sufficient quality for the main page. And yes, births and deaths need to be added manually to those pages for every bio you write preferably. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks TRM. So who is picking the ones to go on the main page and where can I make some suggestions for that? e.g. (and these are all B class or higher articles): February 27 Ellen Terry (born 1847) or Elizabeth Taylor (born 1932). February 28 Stephanie Beacham (born 1947) or Bernadette Peters (born 1948). Can someone direct me to the right page for making suggestions such as these? Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Stephanie Beacham lacks complete referencing. As TRM said, you can add to any OTD that's not protected, so those that are more than a day out. Perhaps ping User:Howcheng to let him know. Stephen 10:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The criteria for articles which can be included in this slot need to be clarified. The guidelines state "articles must be B class or higher" but I see User:The Rambling Man has removed some of my suggestions of B class articles on the grounds of insufficient referencing. If a certain level of referencing is required in addition to B class status, then that needs to be mentioned in the guidelines - otherwise they are misleading. MurielMary (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed items that I will simply bring to ERRORS as being poorly referenced. I'm not sure I ever agree with any criteria that relates to our own internal classification mark, I recently added one which was apparently a C-class article yet should probably have been a Good Article. While we're here, we need to also address the issue of internationalism vs gender. While it's a noble prospect to get around 50% of the b/d to be female, that's not actually representative of the articles we have on Misplaced Pages, and not only that, it will be prejudicing against non-white-Western individuals as we have very few decent articles on minority/non-white-Westerners, and most of them that are decent are about men. Not saying that it's right but before we strive headlong for the male/female 50/50, we need to be a touch more circumspect given the catalogue of articles we have to work with. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Being B-class by itself doesn't mean the other rules don't apply. —howcheng {chat} 22:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The B-class issue thing is minor, it's a "should" and so it should be. Who cares what arbitrary classification an article is given unless it's a GA or an FA? In all other cases it's simply a guess. What's more pertinent is the rush to make the b/d a 50/50 m/f thing to the exclusion of the minorities. Just be watchful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on the internal classification system, good to know that TRM successfully added a C class article. As I was reading articles and looking at their class rating, there certainly were inconsistencies in quality in each class. BTW my recent adds weren't part of any "rush to make b/d 50/50 male/female", just looking for a wider range of articles in this slot than has appeared thus far - range including gender as well as ethnicity, reason for notability, historical era etc. I appreciate that there is a smaller pool of articles for any group who isn't a white male, however there is still a reasonable pool to pull from. MurielMary (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
All of your additions thus far have been Western white women from the 19th and 20th centuries. That's hardly a wide range. Stephen 02:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'd added so far included men, women, ancient, modern, sports, literature, politics, non-American, non-English. I think the range I provided was perfectly reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned over on Women in Red, of the 26 biographies profiled in the first 13 days of this initiative, 19 were of white men, 3 of white women, 3 of non-white men and 1 of a non-white woman. To me that's not a reasonable range for gender and ethnicity, hence my edits to add white and non-white women as I come across them. Definitions of "reasonable range" and "wide range" clearly differ between editors. It's interesting that featuring 19/26 biographies on white men isn't considered problematic but adding some white women is considered a huge problem. MurielMary (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

C class articles

When I set the original criteria, I set it at B class and above for the specific reason of avoiding poorly referenced articles being linked from the Main Page. However, some C class articles have been listed. Should we relax things to allow C class and above, or stick to B class, which allows for articles that are C class to be reassessed against the B class criteria and promoted should they meet it. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's the classifications of the articles that's the problem. Please re-visit what "C-class" actually means and see if that matches what you believe the quality of those three articles you've objected to featuring here. I very much believe not, and it's almost invariably down to the fact that the assessmentas either haven't been updated on the talk page or are simply incorrect. Classifications are probably not a suitable way of judging the quality of an article, it's been dropped by ITN for this very reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Classifications are a way of judging the quality of an article, particularly for GA and above. Many B class articles are probably capable of reaching GA without too much work. Agree that referencing standards need to be taken into account, whatever the rating of an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Classifications are a way of judging the quality of an article, but are seldom reliable when judging start -> C -> B. That's why ITN dropped it altogether. And that's why your objection to those three articles based on classification alone is without real foundation. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Per TRM, the issue is not whether the article has been assessed as "B" class, but whether the article should be assessed as B-class. For articles that have not gone through the proper assessment for whatever reason, there's no need to hold them up for some silly bureaucracy. It should be "would it be B-class if anyone had yet bothered to so assess it" and not "has anyone formally assessed it yet". Just as we don't post badly under-referenced articles on the main page even if someone hasn't tag-bombed them yet, we also should be assessing quality ourselves, and not just trusting some arbitrary tag or talk page note. --Jayron32 18:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

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 for March 4, 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) 07:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You've already got your way with three bios, two women that day, 2/2 women the next day, 2/2 women the next day. I'd say you've managed to redress the balance. Overcompensating probably. Positive discrimination possibly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
9 of the first 13 days of this initiative featured 2/2 men. So you think that 3 or 4 days with 2/2 women is redressing or even overcompensating? Interesting. Also, really, the tone of your comment that "you've got your way" is very odd. This isn't about one editor "getting their way", it's about creating a main page which features content which reflects WP and the world. It's not anyone's personal "way". That's why there are guidelines to follow. MurielMary (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
What proportion of FA bios are about women? GAs? Since there are so few quality articles to choose from, and you're picking 2/2 women every day, it'll mean next year will be particularly bereft of such bios. You have got your way, hope you enjoy it! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, or perhaps by next year there'll be more quality women's bios to feature, newly written by the editors who see the women's bios on the main page and are inspired to write something of similar quality. One of the reasons representation is important is for showing people what can be achieved. Yes, ever the optimist, me. MurielMary (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You summarily failed to answer my question, but I suppose we probably already have an inkling of the answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

6 February

This discussion is copied from Misplaced Pages talk:Selected anniversaries/today

The Reagan article says it is recognized in 21 states, which is not "most".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: There is more traffic and a better chance of discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Selected anniversaries. Whizz40 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Whizz40:I have had no prior involvement in the OTD feature. I fielded a request sent to Wikimedia at OTRS.
I thought I would start by looking at wp:OTD, which helpfully redirects to Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries.
I looked thought that page to see if there was any guidance for reporting errors, and saw none.
I thought perhaps the guidance would be on each days page, so I came to Misplaced Pages:Selected_anniversaries/today (which is updated, but was 6 Feb when I visted it.
Again, no hint on how to report an error, so I followed the general convention of commenting on the talk page.
If you have any involvement in this initiative, I hope you will find a way to add information about reporting errors either on the general page, or on the specific page.
Does this make sense?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, the Selected Anniversaries pages can be a bit of a maze to navigate. I copied the discussion to here and added guidance about reporting errors on Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries. The change to the Regan article on Feb 6 I will leave to others. Whizz40 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Whizz40:Thank-you for that improvement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick a trivial Google search on "Ronald Reagan Day" revealed this for me. Forty states. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I naively assumed OTD was something like DYK and would relate to a Misplaced Pages article, as did the person who wrote to Wikimedia, noting the disconnect between the claim and the article. One or the other should be corrected. I've had a tiny bit of involvement with DYK, where the process includes (after some embarrassing shortcomings) a verification that the "hook" is supported by a reliable source. Is that not the case with OTD? If so, perhaps the feature should be shut down. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I have updated the article with a reference to the 40 states. Stephen 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, one would hope that blurbs are cited within each article at OTD and DYK, there may be the odd issue at OTD (far fewer than at DYK) but as I noted, a trivial Google search plus the addition of one line to the article (which anyone could have done) would have solved that, in this case. We also have WP:ERRORS, so perhaps you could direct the OTRS complainant that way next time, for a more expedient (sometimes) result. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Judith Kaplan Eisenstein - March 18

Hi, haven't nominated for On this Day or Did You Know before and was going to nominate Judith Kaplan Eisenstein's page as: Did you know Judith Kaplan was the first woman to celebrate a Bat Mitzvah publicly which she did on March 18, 1922 aged 12. But am I right in thinking the article is not new enough (i.e. created in last 7 days) for Did You Know or 5-fold expanded in last seven days? And is not B-class quality or higher so cannot be considered for On this Day either? Stinglehammer (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Category: