Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

propose section for organizations

I propose for the template to add a new section for organizations named after dates, limited to organizations that are in Wikipedia. That means they would have notability or due weight. It would be called == Organizations ==, in the plural form even if only one organization is in it. The section would be optional, so that it would exist only for dates for which at least one organization can be listed. It would appear after the section == Holidays and observances ==. Its content would normally be a list styled like the lists in disambiguation pages, including barring piping and severely limiting narrative content, so that a list item would normally be only one line long, usually a short line. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Examples? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the New York May 1 Coalition or May 1st Coalition at their website, The September 11 Memorial of Remembrance Committee at the Troy Record, the July 4th Coalition in FBI Probes Coalition Planning July 4 Rally, in The Washington Post, May 29, 1976, the January 2nd Coalition discussed in a political party's website, and the January 2nd Coalition for the Defense of Haitian Refugees included in a file on or from former New York City Councilmember Miriam Friedlander via a college archive (in file 05.009.0025.00047.051434.5.PDF), all as accessed in the last hour or two. I have not judged their notability or weight; that step should come for any organization after we have a place to list them. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (Clarified incomplete URL: 18:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

I think in some cases a hatnote might be appropriate, but new sections don't seem appropriate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That suggests we would place a hatnote above the lead to say For the organization The September 11 Memorial of Remembrance Committee see memorials and services for the September 11 attacks. or something like it, but that would violate the guideline, because that is to use a hatnote to state an article's substantive content. Also, it's nonstandard to place body content above the lead, but no section already in the template seems to be a good place for this kind of hatnote. If a section titled Organizations is too narrowly focused, a more wide-ranging title would be fine. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding your example. Are you suggesting that the entries under organizations would be external links? I would oppose that entirely. Additionally, whatever the content of the section, if there wasn't enough to place the section on all the date pages, I would also oppose that. But that's just me, of course. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not an external link; I agree with you. The link would normally be to a Wikipedia article, but it would also name the organization if the organization is not the subject of a Wikipedia article but is in an article because of due weight. Thus, it would be somewhat like this list item from the CBR disambiguation page: "* Content-based router, see enterprise service bus". Links would be internal, and could be live links and redlinks (a redlink would be deleted after a while if no one created an article).

Nor do there have to be 366 organizations to have a section in the template. For example, not every article across Wikipedia has a section for Further Reading, Bibliography, or anything like it. Not every article about a neighborhood has a list of Notable Residents. In the rare case that someone added a section without content, we generally would delete that empty section from that date article. But the MOS does list some sections that should be considered for articles when content is available for them and the template serves a function like that served by MOS in listing sections articles (in this case, date articles) can have or should have.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (Clarified sentences: 15:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Undone. No consensus was established for this change. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was established, in accordance with Wikipedia:Consensus, but it can change again. I had responded to all of the concerns you had raised. This would not be for external links but only for Wikipedia articles. The sections didn't have to appear on all 366 pages, but only where articles would be added (and in the template). Is there something else that needs to be addressed? Nick Levinson (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Providing a response doesn't establish consensus. I was on vacation and this slipped down my watchlist. I think a concrete proposal with proposed WP:DAYS language and WP:DOY language should be placed up for RFC. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

An RfC would be premature. I think I can address your remaining concerns. You might be right that it's not a good idea. It would help to know how, since one of your concerns I agreed with (we should not use external links, only links to Wikipedia articles) and the other was about whether or not to add sections for all 366 days, which is not necesary and not expected under Wikipedia's MOS layout guideline; we'd only add to days when there is an organization or place to list. If there is no organization or place for a date, we would not have an empty section for them. If your view is that we can't list any organization or place unless we can list 366, why would that be necessary?

If those two issues are not issues any more, what is your disagreement with either section?

Consensus was reached but changing is allowed. In a discussion, answering if the answer appears to resolve all outstanding issues and is not answered does support a consensus. There were only two editors involved, you and me; I addressed everything outstanding, and you didn't reply, and evidently there was no further discussion coming, so I was free to go ahead. If I had known you were away and would return reasonably soon, I could have waited, but no one told me you were temporarily absent.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It has long been the intent of the project to create date pages that are easy to manage and have consistent formatting. Adding a new section that provides limited value across the board is not really desirable. The reason that an RfC would be appropriate is that the date pages are fairly highly visited, but this project page is not. Unleashing a widespread change without some additional input could lead to a big headache when the change is noticed in the main space. The RfC is just a way to avoid problems in the future. The RfC also expands it from just a discussion between two editors. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

An RfC has been begun (I assumed a third opinion would have been objected to, so the RfC was appropriate). Nick Levinson (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

propose spacing in edit mode

I propose adding spacing in the edit window so that every list item has at least one space after the leading asterisk/s, rather than abutting without spacing, and so that section headings are spaced between equals signs and a section title. The ground for list item spacing is Help:List. The ground for section heading spacing is that most edits, I think bot-driven, that mainly change section heading spacing do so by adding spaces rather than removing them. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings says spacing is optional and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections gives examples that are not spaced, Help:Section favors spacing and MediaWiki automatically adds spacing when on a Talk page the New Section tab link is clicked and the topic/section is then saved. For both list items and section headings, spacing visible while editing helps readability. I anticipate that adding either or both spacings to this template will apply only to future edits of date pages; there's little need to do more than that. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It ain't broke as it is. There's no compelling reason to make the change. Adding to the template will have absolutely no impact on the layout of the articles going forward. Only in-place example will cause a change. We try to keep the articles all the same so any change would need to be applied across the board all at once. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not critically important, content and page displays being unaffected, but ease and consistency are helpful. If only in-place examples can justify a change and editing that produces an in-place example is reverted, then we are preserving mistakes. It's not adding to the template; it's editing the template. The effect on date articles in the future is mainly in the adding of list items to date articles; editors can add in accordance with normal Wikipedia style without having to deviate or other editors having to take time to modify into a deviation. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your example that was reverted changed the layout such that the items did not line up in the edit window. It made it hard to distinguish between the lines. If you look at the current versions of the pages, you can see that they all line up and it's easy to see all the lines. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposal would not have that adverse effect. The only en-dash shift is with years that are less than four digits long or that have something like "BC" added (and that problem exists anyway and affects very few events). Every list item would gain exactly one space, so that alignment would not change in the edit window or as displayed. MediaWiki displays list items as if there is exactly one space following the asterisk/s even if there is none and extra spaces are stripped out for the display, so displays would be unaffected. Section headings display the same way on the same logic. The proposal already accommodates yor concern. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look here and scroll to the births section you'll see that everything is skewed (starting at 1940 for example). The unlinked years with the adjusted spacing are all off and it's not as easy to follow. If you look here at the same section it is much different. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is not identical to my earlier edits because I took your concerns into consideration in preparing the proposal. At first, I had not noticed that the en-dash strings were lining up and that my edit was misaligning them; I acknowledged that at the October 17 talk page. My proposal would not misalign them, because every list item would gain one space, so every en-dash string would continue to be aligned vertically. The only risk is that someone would add a list item with improper formatting but that's a risk today anyway and we'd simply correct the list items not conforming to the MOS, the ones missing the spaces, and that would have to be done only once and only when needed.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The change was made over four weeks ago by me and then undone yesterday by another editor. My edit kept the vertical alignment. Consensus can change again. Is there a concern that has not yet been addressed? Nick Levinson (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding the established template

An RFC has been started here to discuss the continued use of the horizontal line separating External links and the Months template in the days of the year pages. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is established here that the line before the months template should be removed. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

new sections including for organizations and places named for dates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am treating this as a proposal to add language to the policies listed, in which case there is no consensus to add to the text. No judgement (for, against, or neutral) is passed on whether current policy allows or prohibits organizations being lists on date pages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

May notable and weighty organizations, places, and other matters named after dates and that are in Wikipedia articles be listed in date articles, just as births, deaths, holidays, observances, and events are already listed? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Add threaded discussion to the next subsection. Add support, opposition, and other views here, preferably reasoned.

• Support. I proposed the concept. My reasons are in the threaded discussion subsection, below.

• Oppose: a solution in search of a problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: No added value. Limited applicability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support: In a new section called something like "Resulting Names". Newyorkadam (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

• Support Anything that helps with WP:DLINKS is appreciated on my end.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Organizations and places exist that are named after dates. Few are notable or weighty, but a large quantity is not needed before listing several. Places may include towns, streets, and plazas named to commemorate dates. Dates may be explicit (e.g., July 14) or implicit (e.g., Bastille Day, which is consistently on July 14). Date articles are about matters related to specific dates. The scope of each article is defined by the policy on an article's title. No date article is given a title (such as with a parenthetical part) that limits it to a subset of those matters. As a result, organizations and places named after dates are already within the scope of the date articles. There may be other kinds of date-specific content, such as people named after dates (see, e.g., Christmas (dab) (people)), and Wikipedia now expects that if they are within the scope of an article title then they belong, even if not every date has the same kind of content. That is already the case with month articles; compare January, February, and March, which do not have identical sections.

The first time an organization or a place is listed for a date, an editor would add a new section, either == Organizations == or == Places ==. The section title would be in the plural form, even if only one listing is provided. Not all pages have to have the same sections, because probably not all dates have qualified organizations and places named after them, and the MOS guideline does not require that all articles have the same sections even if empty. For example, an article on a neighborhood may have no section on notable residents because no source has named any, while another neighborhood article may have such a section with a long list of notable residents. Where there's a substantial amount of content, the content should be sectioned (apart from the lead, "an article .... is divided into sections"); the absence of a section is not a ground for excluding content.

As an alternative, hatnotes were mentioned (not necessarily proposed) but they would appear to violate a guideline and would be impractical for more than a couple of items. No other timeline or chronological portal has been identified as appropriate for the purpose. No other alternative has been proposed.

An objection was raised, namely that it would make article maintenance more burdensome. But no specific page management issue has been described or is likely, because the editorial burden would be the same as it is now, other than that there would be more content, and that's already true of all of Wikipedia, which now has over four million articles being maintained by thousands of editors.

The WP:DAYS page does not need to be edited. It is sufficient and clear as it is. Amendment: The WP:DAYS page was recently edited so that it is no longer sufficient for the purpose. The previously-sufficient text is available as an old diff, a new diff, and a revision. That sufficient text is part of this proposal.

The WP:DOY page would be updated by adding a section like the following, after the existing section on Holidays and Observances:

== Organizations and places ==

Organizations and places that are named after dates may be listed in date articles. Only organizations and places that are subjects of Wikipedia articles or are included in Wikipedia articles should be added to date articles. Thus, they must be notable or due weight. If one is notable but not an article subject yet, create the article first, or if one is due weight but is not named in an article, add it to an article first, and, if the new article or addition remains for about a week, you may add the organization or place to a date article.
Do not post an external link. Link only to a Wikipedia article.
Do not create a redlink. Instead, create the article first or create a redirect from the redirect title to the destination title.
The first time an organization is being added to a date article, create a section for Organizations. Place it after the Holidays and Observances section.
The first time a place is being added to a date article, create a section for Places. Place it after the Organizations section or, if that doesn't exist, after the Holidays and Observances section.

Do not create an empty section.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (Corrected the lack of a sig block and clarified a syntactical article: 19:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)) (Added amendment due to edit elsewhere: 20:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC))

I prefer the hatnote solution, although I'll agree that WP:RELATED seems to prevent using hatnotes for what would essentially be a disambiguation task. I don't agree that organizations like National September 11 Memorial & Museum fall within the scope of the September 11 article (which has a hatnote) and I see you've already added an organization to the article. I think there's only a handful of instances where this situation occurs and not enough to warrant a change in how the articles are formatted. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

About the criticism that there would be "no added value": It would add the same value as listing any event would, in that it would help Wikipedia readers find related articles based on a date. The problem it solves is in helping readers find articles, the main function of the days articles generally.

Nowhere else do we require that information be available for hundreds of articles before it can be added to any. I added the organization at a time when the principle of doing so was not disputed and was within policies and guidelines. How do "organizations like National September 11 Memorial & Museum [not] fall within the scope of the September 11 article", given that the article title determines its scope? I suppose we could create a parallel set of articles titled like September 11 (other information) and then add add it to the September 11 hatnote; is that a better solution?

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Chris Troutman said it best, it's "a solution in search of a problem". And unless someone could have the reasonable expectation of arriving at National September 11 Memorial & Museum when they type September 11 then a hatnote isn't appropriate either. The date articles are for things that happen on a date, not things that are related to a date (thus the reason that these have also been referred to as historical anniversary articles). FTR, the principle of adding an organizations section has always been frowned upon and the guidelines have always been opposed to it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If that "the principle of adding an organizations section has always been frowned upon and the guidelines have always been opposed to it" refers to WP:DOY, I don't disagree but I raise the issue because readers need to be able to find date-related articles both for what happens and for other date-related information. But if the statement of principle refers to all of Wikipedia, the Wikipedia:Organizations#If it.27s not notable guideline disagrees. In that case, the best alternative solution may be a set of parallel articles for date-specific information other than what these date articles include, with hatnotes cross-referencing same-date articles, but not cross-referencing an organization or specific events. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC) (Corrected syntax: 23:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC))

Disposition after RfC

This topic/section was part of a Request for Comments, for which the template has now been removed without a formal closure, and extension of the RfC was, to my knowledge, not pending. In accordance with the procedure for ending an RfC, the removal without a formal closure means that consensus has been reached and is "obvious" and thus supports the expansion of date articles by the addition of appropriate sections for organizations and places and the addition of the appropriate content and by the editing of the WP:DAYS and WP:DOY pages as proposed above. Thus, there will be no need to create parallel articles for date-based non-event content. If anyone disagrees, a formal closure may be requested at a noticeboard. I'll wait a week before beginning compliance with this outcome. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was reached and was obviously against the proposed change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now requested a formal closure. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the template is removed by a bot. No judgement as to consensus is made with the removal of the template. Formal closure is appropriate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is, to all three. Judgment is made by removal of the template. As the RfC process page states: "If the matter is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. However, if the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable." Thus, informal closure means "the matter is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants". I relied on the Survey subsection, the rest being consistent with it. The bot is operated by a human, so if anyone thinks it is malfunctioning in some way, please consider reporting it. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC) (Corrected link: 17:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

While it's pointless to argue this, it's important for your future reference to know that the bot removes the template based on its age, not on any evaluation of the content. The bot owner doesn't evaluate the RFC in any way when the template is removed, nor is he/she expected to. The bot is functioning as it is designed. You simply misunderstand its purpose. The survey section is basically a vote, and we don't operate based on votes. Since two of the support votes came from editors who gave no substantive support for their vote, they are likely (but not required) to be discounted. Someone will evaluate the threaded discussion to determine the outcome. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If there was no evaluation and the process did not err by being nonjudgmental, then the RfC process page as quoted above is wrong, in which case please feel free to edit the RfC page or propose an edit there. One of the two supportive survey votes gave a reason and the other gave a solution. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2013 (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.

Articles for each day of the year

I have a (general) question about the Wikipedia articles for each day of the year (e.g., December 29). Is this the appropriate page to ask such a question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Could be. What's the question? --Alexbook (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For a question about what is on the pages and why, that would be best asked at WT:DOY. For questions about how the pages look, this is the place. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So, here's my question. On any given date, there is a section (at the bottom) for the holidays, observances, feasts, etc., that fall on that particular date. As an example, the article on December 25 lists the holiday of Christmas in the "Holidays" section at the bottom of the page. So, on what date exactly do we list holidays that fall on different days each year (e.g., Father's Day, Easter, etc.)? Or are they simply not listed anywhere (on any specific date) at all? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Father's Day falls on different dates depending on the year and location. Anywhere from February 23 to December 26. Haven't seen it listed. It would be confusing to see it noted in fifty-odd DOY articles. We could choose to only list the most recent (or nearest upcoming) Father's Day, wherever it lands, but editors would have to stay on top of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

So, at present, holidays with a "floating date" are not listed at all in these "Day of the Year" articles. Is that correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. Per Wikipedia:Days_of_the_year#Holidays_and_observances, only holidays that occur on the same date every year are listed. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we don't always follow our own rules. There are quite a few pages with entries like this one, from August 24#Holidays and observances:

• Earliest date on which Notting Hill Carnival can fall, while August 31 is the latest; celebrated on the last Monday in August and the day before. (Notting Hill)

Should someone go through and remove these, or should we reconsider the policy? --Alexbook (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really "work here", but as a guy with a Wikilink in his signature, I feel like an investor. In that capacity, I recommend cutting these types of hypotheticals. Anything that a reader can't quickly subtract from the current date to learn how many years has passed (or what holiday is definitely today) isn't what I feel these pages should teach. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should reconsider the policy. However, off the top of my head, I can't think of an appropriate replacement policy. It seems odd that many of the "major" holidays (Easter, Father's Day, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving, etc.) are eliminated from these "Holiday" sections of the Days of the Year. Seems counter-intuitive. Seems counter to the whole point of listing holidays in the first place, if we are not going to list the "big ones". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the earliest and latest date listings as they really don't add much value. I'd support their removal. Observance that don't occur on the same date each year should still be excluded. The point of the articles is "what happens on this date" not "on what date is XX major holiday". -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems quite odd/bizarre to list an entire year (365 days) and to list all of the holidays that occur in those 365 days. And, nowhere in that list will be found most of the major holidays: Easter, Thanksgiving, Father's Day, Mother's Day, etc. That is the issue. The incongruity of listing holidays, yet excluding most of the major holidays (as if they do not occur at all throughout the entire year of the 365 days detailed). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That these holidays are so major and well-known suggests their omission from one (or all) possible date articles won't hurt much. There's no intent to censor. But their notability comes mostly from what happens on the day, not when it falls. June 16 has no general significance to Father's Day; even in those countries who called dad then in 2013, it only coincides about once a decade.

It's the fleeting association I have a problem with. Boxing Day is noted in December 26 because that connection has been drilled into heads for longer than we've been alive. Likewise, births, deaths and historical events will never happen another day. If we list Easter on March 31, we're implying that particular (astronomical) Easter of 2013 (or 2002) was somehow notable on its own merits, despite not having a Wikipedia article.

I'm fine with noting Danish or Guatemalan Father's Day on June 5 and 17, or any similar permanent attachment. But I don't think there's any good way to list the general holidays, given the notability and transience issues. Or is there? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

I understand the points made, relative to the floating holidays and not listing them in any particular date article. However, I am still troubled by the fact that we list all of the holidays within the 365 days, and yet we omit many of the major holidays. There can be no dispute that "Holidays" is an integral part of these Day-of-Year (DOY) articles, since there are only four sections: births, deaths, events, and holidays. Perhaps we can create a new article, entitled something like "List of Holidays that Have a Moving Date or Floating Date" (or some such title with better wording). Within that article, we can list the 12 months and have entries such as "May: second Sunday of the month = Mother's Day" and so forth. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There's already a category, see Category:Moveable holidays, and templates used at the bottom of pages for the holidays (e.g. Template:U.S. Holidays). Is there any additional content that would be in a list? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a category ... and a template ... not an article (list). My proposal was ... Perhaps we can create a new article, entitled something like "List of Holidays that Have a Moving Date or Floating Date" (or some such title with better wording). Within that article, we can list the 12 months and have entries such as "May: second Sunday of the month = Mother's Day" and so forth. I don't think the categorization or the template serves that same purpose. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be useful. Key date information at a glance, rather than clicking each day's Wikilink and finding the section. I'm for it. List of floating holidays seems just long enough. "Moveable", maybe, to fit the category. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

What would be in the list that isn't available in the category? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you seem to be missing the point. The content would (essentially) be the same. The difference is in the function/utility/use of an article versus the function/utility/use of a category. As the editor above said: Key date information at a glance, rather than clicking each day's Wikilink and finding the section. The point is that all the data would be aggregated and collected on one page comprehensively, rather than having to click 25 different links to see the "floating date" of 25 different holidays. Plus ... I am not sure about this ... but does a "category" even come up, when you type a phrase in the Search Box? I didn't think so, unless you actually use the prefix "CAT:" in front of the words being searched (I think?). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

I just experimented with my question in my above post. If a reader types in "moveable holidays" into the Wikipedia Search Box, the category entitled Moveable holidays does not even come up as a search result. Only various articles (not categories) come up as search results. That's part of the point I was making in my post above. In order to get the result of the category of Moveable holidays, one must actually type in the word "Category" (plus the terms being searched) into the Search Box. A requirement unlikely to be performed by most readers. And ... if you don't actually include the colon in your search request (i.e., Category  : Moveable holidays), even the category itself will not come up! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

EC. How do you suppose readers will find this moveable holidays article? How would the article be organized? By country, religion? Does it still fall under WP:DAYS? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I personally don't have all the answers; this was just a suggestion on my part to address the problem cited above in this discussion thread. But – secondly – to attempt to answer your questions, I would say this. (1) Readers will find the article, just like they would find any other article. Plus, I assume we would incorporate the wiki link into some articles. Plus, I assume there would be some redirects (e.g., floating holiday to moveable holiday, etc.). (2) I would envision that the article would be organized by months. I gave an example in an above post. We would list all 12 months. Under "May", it would say "second Sunday of the month = Mother's Day" ... and so forth for all moveable holidays. (3) I don't know much about the WikiProject DAYS. It would seem to me that this would fall under their umbrella, however. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be more proper under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays banner. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will post something about this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Holidays#Request for help. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I came here from your link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Holidays#Request for help.
If you are looking for ideas for lists to create, maybe a List of 2014 dates of moveable holidays would do. That being said, some of the lists in Category:Lists of public holidays by region include dates for the current year, but these are obviously hard to maintain. Eventually, we might be able to do this with Lua and rules to compute them, but there are a few steps to complete before we get there. It already works for a few holidays.
One of the short term priorities for WikiProject Holidays is more likely to be Category:Moveable holidays (2014 date missing). -- 签名 _sig at 08:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not envision an article for floating holidays in a specific given year (as in your example of 2014). I meant a generic all-purpose one. It would include entries like this: "Mother's Day is the second Sunday in May; Father's Day is the first Sunday in June; Thanksgiving is the last Thursday in November", etc. A generic listing of when floating holidays fall in any year. (Those are just examples that I made up, off the top of my head.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

For the ones in Category:Moveable holidays, we could compile one by bot from the infoboxes (at least until Wikidata can supply it). It would also make it easier to compare what is in the infoboxes and make that more consistent.

The ones in Category:Generic types of holidays are more tricky .. each article includes a list with countries and dates that apply there. The first two you mentioned are in there. -- 签名 _sig at 07:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you not understanding? A category is different than an article. See my comments above on this very issue. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suggest to create another category. "compile one" is meant to say "compile a list" -- 签名 _sig at 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Yes, then we are on the same page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Calculation for remaining number of days in the year

Hi, on the day-of-the-year pages it says "There are ... days remaining until the end of the year" but it is not clear unless you actually do the calculation yourself whether or not that number includes the day in question. 86.169.36.247 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I never thought of that. Perhaps the phrasing could be changed to say "including today's date", or "not counting today", or whatever the appropriate calculation is. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Replacing "days remaining" with "days to follow" would do it too. -- 签名 _sig at 10:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Connection between ISO 8601 standard and YYYY-MM-DD date format

An editor has been proposing to remove the restriction in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers that the YYYY-MM-DD date format is restricted to Gregorian calendar dates, with the year range limited from 1583 to 9999 inclusive. I don't believe this change should be made without proper consideration so I have opened an RFC: WT:MOSNUM#RFC: Connection between ISO 8601 standard and YYYY-MM-DD date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions about format

Although I am not new to Wikipedia, I am new to editing these "day of the year" pages. So, I have two questions. These questions refer to the "Events" sections of the "day of the year" pages. (1) Do we typically list the entries as full sentences, or do we list them as sentence fragments? For example, is the proper format to say: "1776 - The adoption of the Declaration of Independence" ... or ... "1776 - The Declaration of Independence is adopted" ... ? Also: (2) Do we include a period or not after each entry? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, they don't need to be full sentences and therefore wouldn't be followed by periods. There are some cases where it just makes sense to format as a sentence. But since there is no specific wording that addresses this and over the years it has gone both ways, there is no real definitive answer. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. But that really doesn't seem to be the case; hence, my asking the questions here. If you look at today (February 11), for example, all of the "Events" are followed by a period, regardless of whether they are written in full sentence or sentence fragment style. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Date should be corrected

In the List of Deaths on February 14th

*1987 – Dmitry Kabalevsky, Russian composer (b. 1904)

should be moved from February 14th to February 18th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.246.130 (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no apparent reason for making the change in that article. Do you have some sort of source for either date? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, but his article (Dmitry Kabalevsky) does list his date of death as February 18. In fact, the date of February 18 is actually listed twice within the article. One of the sources, however, is a dead link. On top of all that, this source (A list of Kabalevsky's compositions) indicates that he died on February 16. This sources ([1]) states February 18. Encyclopædia Britannica ([2]) says February 14. This source ([3]) states: "The U.S.S.R. reported his death on February 18, 1987"; therein may lie the problem (i.e., a discrepancy of when he died versus when the death was reported). There is also a discussion at his Talk Page (Talk:Dmitry Kabalevsky) about this very issue, here: Talk:Dmitry Kabalevsky#Date of death. So, does anyone have any idea which might be correct? My best guess – and it's only a guess – is that he died on February 14, and the U.S.S.R. did not report it for a few days (February 18); hence, the discrepancy. As stated on that article Talk Page, the elapse of a few days between the U.S.S.R. reporting the death to the Western World – back in 1987, mind you – is probably not particularly uncommon. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article the diff I linked is from. I think Britannica is probably the most reliable of the sources you offer. Per that, and the chronological reasoning on the Talk page, I've fixed it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

new-sections RfC closure followup

The RfC formal closure means, I think, that the best solution is to create a parallel set of day pages with titles formatted like "January 1 (nonevent)" and to create a simple guideline-like essay akin to both WP:DAYS and WP:DOY but adapted to this new group of pages (I plan to write the essay which, hopefully, will eventually be made into a guideline). That way, WP:DAYS and WP:DOY would remain untouched by this matter, consistently with the RfC closure decision. It is not proposed to place the nonevent pages within the same WikiProject because creating the pages is consistent with Wikipedia's purpose but now not with the WikiProject and the decision not to change the WikiProject's guideline and other WikiProject page per the RfC closure, so the consistent solution is to be outside of the WikiProject, but I have no objection to anyone creating a new WikiProject for nonevent date pages. The parallel set of pages likely would not reach 366 until there is content for 366. Hatnotes would cross-reference pages for the same date. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A different approach would be to create categories for places or organizations named after dates. This, of course, would only include places and organizations for which an article exists, which might be a good thing. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I already plan to limit to existing articles and categorization would apply also to the existing series of event date articles, too, but we aren't doing that because lists are useful to Wikipedia's readers and lists permit annotating. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Plus, items that are due weight but don't have their own articles should be listed, too, and that would be confusing in categories. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Format of names on the 'births' and 'deaths' list

I have noticed that most of the names on the lists are listed with the person's unadorned or untitled name. There are a few exceptions such as royal family members, heads of religions and performers' and artists pseudonyms. I am unclear about the current view on titled people. Some are listed as - for example - Beryl Platt, Baroness Platt of Writtle or Frances D'Souza, Baroness D'Souza Others are listed without reference to any titles or awards. Is there any guidance on the entry format for ennobled or titled people or should they be entered with only their given names, subject to the previously mentioned exceptions. If we start down the 'titled' route I fear it will be a nightmare to hell as more and more pre and post nominal titles are suggested for inclusion. I am in favour of keeping it title free and I have been editing out titles when I see them, but I don't want to carry on until there is some clarity on this. Richard Avery (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any other opinion I will continue to reformat names without titles except for royalty. Richard Avery (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Titles are excluded per WP:HONORIFIC. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, thanks Mufka. Richard Avery (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about "Days of the year" articles

In these "Days of the year" articles, do we list only events that have a certain year or date? Or do we also list events that contain a "circa" date associated with them? If so, does the "circa" notation get added into the date's entry? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Birth of Mary

September 8 is considered the birthday of Mary (at least by the Roman Catholic church). Should her birth be listed under "Births" in the "September 8" article? Is there any reason why it is not listed there? The year of her birthday is listed as "circa" 15 B.C. (or "circa" 18 B.C.). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know the year, you can't put the date. Some mark the date as May 9. It can't be both. Besides we don't include fictional characters. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said "fictional", but, if we don't know the date, we shouldn't list it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Real person, once, but long, long dead. The Mary character we know is an assortment of embelishments and alterations, some probably not even loosely based on the real Mary's actual characteristics. We barely even remember her actual parents didn't name her "Mary". Things like birthdates are far more foggy, especially for people born in years with funny calendars, before years started at 1.

I'm not against retroactively applying our calendars, even when it's technically lying. But if we're not sure, it's a bigger lie to say we are. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Lead summary

I strongly disagree with this revert here which was intended to summarise the article in the lede with engaging prose summarising the more significant events. I know project members are going to support Mufka as you're used to your norm of absolutely no lead or sources, but whatever norm for these year articles has been in the past I believe they are now in need of being modernized with a prose summary. I'd like some input also from non project members on this, This was reverted on WP:UNDUE but WP:LEAD says otherwise. I believe that any article should be sourced and provide a summary to lead the reader into the article, even lists. I don't see how UNDUE applies, you could argue that for any article or list. It is always fair for an editor to decide what or what is not notable enough to be included in the intro. I think these date pages would all look a lot better if somebody wrote an engaging prose summary of the most notable events at the start like I've done here. They look bare without and I also think having some decent sources to support some of the more notable events can only help its encyclopedic value and quality and make it easier for the reader to extract from. I do hope that others follow my example in other pages. Even if a list, lists should have a decent lead at least. I think it's time these date pages were brought up to current standards and they'll look a lot better for it. I acknowledge that my summary wasn't perfect and not quite a full summary of the other aspects but I thought it was a considerable improvement in quality. If I wanted to get September 1 up to FL status, having such a sourced lead would surely be a requirement? Sorry, I just don't see why dates should be exempt from normal quality standards. Given that the goal of wikipedia ultimately is to get every article or list on the website up to FA or FL status, no article is exempt from that, technically these date pages as formal wikipedia articles should also have to comply with expected quality standards with a lead summary and sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am an outside party and concur with the good doctor. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not a snappy glossary of factoidal bullets points. I appreciate that this is the way you have been doing things here over the years, but I really do think that it is now time to drag these articles up to date in terms of style and presentation. I'm worried that complacency is hindering these article in terms of ongoing development and style. Cassianto^talk 19:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have yet again reverted that edit per WP:BRD. These pages are essentially lists currently and unless consensus is to change that, we should treat them as such. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: You do realise that a lead is also necessary for lists and is a fundamental requirement for Featured lists on here? Given that every article should be aiming to reach FL status, why do you think your project's insistence that the articles don't need to even be sourced with a decent summary in the lead is compatible with the wider goals of the project to get every article up to featured status?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

An introduction along the lines proposed by Dr. B makes a far better start to the day. But we will need wide participation to ensure the presentation is as objective as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, EvergreenFir you are offering nothing to the discussion and are simply hiding behind BRD. I appreciate that a consensus should be sought, but at the moment that consensus seems to be against you. Cassianto^talk 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld: This needs to be discussed. I really don't care too much how the articles are formatted, but you should not rush this. There is no urgency here. I only reverted because Mufka's revert quickly undone. Let other people join the discussion and if there's clear consensus by the project, move forward. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the bold idea that Blofeld has attempted to put a lede on the article. My concern is we will probably continually fight over what event on September 1 is deemed significant enough to fit into three paragraphs. The start of World War II is a good choice for this reason, but for the others, it's a big ol' world and what's notable for me (eg: United Kingdom general election, 1997 for 3 May) probably isn't notable for you.

I recall a similar incident a while ago on June 1. Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band had become a featured article a short time before June 1 this year, and as it has been documented as being a cultural watershed in popular music, several of which specifically document the 1 June 1967 release date as significant. Yet despite the numerous high quality sources that withheld extreme scrutiny that a FAC with over a million annual readers would require, it was reverted as "not notable!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the doctor here. A lead summary will go a long way in making these dry, bullet-point lists much more compliant to encyclopaedic standards. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir: "These pages are essentially lists currently and unless consensus is to change that, we should treat them as such". I'm sorry, but I think you may be labouring under a mistaken grasp of things here: just beacuse these are lists does not mean that they should be unsourced or that they do not require a lead. ALL pages, whether articles or lists, need to be supported by reliable sources and all pages need a lead. A "new" consensus isn't needed: there already is one in the MOS already "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list". - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The date articles should all be brought up to date in the same way with engaging prose to introduce it supported by sources; they'll look a great deal better for it. I'd also argue that some of our xxx in xxx country articles should also update their standards. Yes, some editorial decisions over what to include or exclude may be disputable, but I generally think things like notable battles/wars or major disasters (rather than localised ones) for starters are priority and if you go through any list you can usually find most of the more prominent events than the lesser important ones. That might be an editorial decision but in every article the writer must decide what is worth mentioning in the lede. We don't avoid writing them in articles and lists purely because of UNDUE weight on any given topic. I don't see why the articles under the scope of this project should be exempt from MOS guidelines and standard article/list writing procedure.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lists may have leads, but they do not select list items to be included. Per MOS:LEAD, a lead should be a summary of the article, not an expansion of selected items from the articl, which will be fought over. Per MOS:LIST#Lead section or paragraph, "It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." There is no way a selection of the notable events can be made without expressing a WP:POV.

And, since there is an established project consensus as to the format of the list, that requires some consensus to overturn it. MOS:LIST is met by the {{day}} template, although the sentence: "This article contains a list of (insert adjective here:notable, significant) events which occurred on September 1.

There is some debate, spread over multiple discussion pages, as to whether a list item needs to be sourced in the list, or whether it can be sourced in the article on the item. I think we need a centralized discussion to override the present apparent consensus that list items can be sourced in the article about the list item, if the link occurs in the list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop tiresomely edit warring on this. No project can own any page, so stop trying to claim that it can. I see no consensus on the talk page for there not to be a lead, so I am perplexed by your claims to the contrary. Please try and be constructive in future, not destructive. - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What a tiresome little edit warrior you are. Carry on with the ownership if you wish: these lists will remain pointless skeletons, unable to be developed because of such bloody awful ownership. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If the lists weren't skeletons, they should be deleted as being inherently WP:POV. Only as skeletons could they remain. For years are possible to have lists of more significant events. Barely. I don't think project 1345 really got off the ground. Never mind 1345 did work, but we are talking about nearby events. How can you determine which of an event on September 1, 5 and September 1, 2005 is more significant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's your archived discussion of the leads: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Archive_2#Linking_dates_in_lead_paragraphs. Even if structure was not expressly discussed, WP:STATUSQUO applies here. Also, WP:CIVIL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)