Talk:August 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--mav 00:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Selected anniversaries for this day |
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box. |
August 6: Feast of the Transfiguration in Christianity; Independence Day in Bolivia (1825) and Jamaica (1962)
|
I'm new to Wikipedia as well, and viewing the list of birhtday's, I missed my birthday. It's August 6, 1977, my name is George Brian Fox. Thank you.
- Unless you meet the criteria outlined in WP:BIO and already have a Wikipedia article (not a user page) about yourself, your birthday should not be noted here. Fabricationary 02:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm brand new to Wikipedia, not brave enough to edit a page, but... The first link on the August 6 day in history links to the wrong Francis I. Yes, he was Francis I in his own domain, but he was Francis II as far as the Holy Roman Empire was concerned. The linked Francis I died in 1765 on his way back from the opera in Innspruck. If he waited until August 6, 1806 to abdicate as the last Holy Roman Emperor, then the HRE was moribund indeed.
[edit] Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the August 6 article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/August_6}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] August 6, 2001
The way the event is worded for the daily posting is an NPOV violation. The briefing showed that there was a possibility that al-Qaeda may attack and what strategies they may employ, not that an attack was imminent. --Kitch 02:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing is not notable. Period.
I've removed this entry three times:
-
- 2005 - Hiroshima marks the 60th anniversary atomic bombing of the city.
How, exactly, is this notable? Unless something which was itself notable happened at an observation of this anniversary, then listing this anniversary — or any other Nth anniversary — serves no purpose but to clutter up the page.
Arguing "well, this is the sixtieth anniversary, and the sixtieth anniversary is significant, so therefore we should list it" fails. After all, this event has been commemorated annually starting in 1946; there is no listing for the tenth, twentieth, thirtieth, fortieth, or fiftieth anniversaries; and the actual, original, and highly notable event is listed on this very page.
Please stop putting this listing back. It is not necessary here. - jredmond 07:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well said. The event is already listed in 1945, where it should be. we don't need to mark anniversaries here. Kingturtle 09:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this addition needed? It's minor, But it's weird how it doesn't talk about something that happened on August 6th. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)