Wikipedia talk:Days of the year/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Guideline

It seems reasonable that this article could be tagged as a guideline. I find no other page that helps to layout what is and is not notable content for WikiCalendar articles. I figured discussion was necessary before tagging it. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree a guidline to which people posing events of little current let alone lasting notability could be refered would be a help. --Drappel 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This could form the basis of a guideline, but it needs a lot of work. There is much between the two extremes that is not covered. JulesH 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Old discussions that might be helpful in this discussion can be found here and here and here. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While I basically concur that a guideline would ne needed (and having been around quite a while: you can be sure that there will be opposition, tagging this as overbureaucratization at least), we need to gather further input before reviving this; so I think we should put up a little message at the village pump...Thoughts? Lectonar 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no way to get any movement on this otherwise. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree something like this is way overdue. I've tagged it as a proposed guideline. I watch one or two of the number articles as well and it might be worth considering expanding the scope to include these articles (e.g. 3 (number)). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That proposed tag made me think of something that probably was clear to everyone else before. This article should contain the actual guideline. The project page isn't really where the rules belong. Am I right? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree the guidelines should be separate from the project page. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Something prompted me to look at WP:POL and I noticed the statement Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow. I don't think that it is much of a stretch to say that the Wikicalendar guidelines, as they are, are widely accepted and a standard that all users follow. From that, I would interpret it to mean that the contents of the guideline could be tagged as a policy with some minor organization and rewriting. Everything in there is and has been widely practiced without much dispute. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Up for discussion

The following items should be discussed to determine what criteria make them globally notable enough for inclusion in Wikicalendar articles. They all happen fairly regularly or in the case of patent dates, how notable was the date that chewing gum was patented? Feel free to add to the list. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Airplane crashes

These happen a lot and most are definitely not globally notable.

Here I see only the possiblity of going by the number of victims, perhaps with a little sidekick if something had grat impact (I'm thinking of something like a whole national sports team dying in a crash or something like that). Lectonar (talk)
But even if 200 people die in a plane crash in Botswana, will that affect people in Japan except those who had family on the plane? I think your sports team example makes sense. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
How about only listing ones that result in (major?) changes to the design/manufacture, operation/maintenance, or use of a vehicle? I haven't done any research into how many incidence this would include so this may or may not help define notability. There are many airplane crashes that are due to unfortunate circumstances (ie. bad weather, human error etc.) and are not notable, bad things happen and we have to deal with the loss. There are other crashes that are notable because they result in changes that show a deliberate and concentrated effort by the industry to improve safety and usability of a mass-transit system. Grouf(talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
How about setting the following criteria: The crash killed a head of state, high ranking public official, well known entertainment figure; the crash caused the grounding of a certain type of aircraft; the crash caused a major worldwide change in policy; the crash was a major act of terrorism. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Earthquakes

Earthquakes happen every day somewhere. What criteria should be used to qualify an earthquake?

He're we should go either by magnitude or number of victims; parameters to be determinded...Lectonar (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
How about highest ever recorded magnitude and/or 1000 deaths? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mufka. However I would put the emphasis on magnitude as earthquakes don't usually kill people, its the human-created objects that kill people when they break during an earthquake. Grouf(talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Highest recorded magnitude in a region (maybe by continent). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Games

Frequently added: this or this game came out on this date; same goes for books...Lectonar (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty well established exclusion (although they are often added). Conflict arises when a video game breaks some sort of sales record. I don't think they should be included at all, but there was a lot of conflict over Halo 3 because it broke some record. Many of the additions are just drive by entries that never get argued. Book releases are generally excluded. Argument was made that the latest Harry Potter book demonstrated a cultural phenomenon and therefore should be included. I still think it doesn't belong, but I was overruled. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree: recent games and book release dates are not notable. By recent I mean anything less then 40-50 years. If after 50 years these objects are still being talk about on a large (large being 2 or more continents) scale then they should be included as notible. (I also agree with Mufka; Halo and Harry Potter should be removed from any and all notable lists. 'Cultural phenomenon' is a very fuzzy term and suggests to me a temporary situation.) Grouf(talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The Halo and Harry Potter entries would need outside input. Conflict will arise if they are removed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

School shootings

School shootings happen frequently enough that they are no longer shocking. Which ones merit inclusion?

I dare say (to avoid bias, as they are more frequent in the USA, AFAIK, only those who make worldwide news (like Columbine, e.g.). Lectonar (talk)
I think the criteria should be that a shooting has to be significantly different from the others. Columbine was one of the first. Virginia Tech got a lot of press. Unless something really shocking happens, I think all others should be excluded. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be careful about adding these events based on the criteria 'make worldwide news '. Many school shootings make the nightly news in many countries but they really are not notable. Ever have the response 'Gee another one. That's too bad. Someone should do something about that.'? Thats not the response to a notable event. I would suggest the same criteria here as I did for airplane crashes; did the event result in a (major?) change in the way societies identify and handle people that are likely to create this situation. This criteria may be a little too fuzzy to apply consistently or accurately, but it might be a good place to start. Grouf(talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there is some dispute as to whether non-notable school shootings should be included. See discussion at Talk:February 14. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I dare say that U.S. school shootings make the international news because such events are rare to unimaginable in other industrialized nations. Rachel Maddow recently read out loud a Reuters disclaimer to non-U.S. readers explaining how such shootings are not unusual in the U.S., but remain rare outside the U.S. Kingturtle (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that every school shooting should be included or that they shouldn't? Should the shootings that occur outside the US be noted? If they are newsworthy around the world will each individual shooting be notable in 5 years? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are good questions. I suppose a school shooting is only significant if it sets some sort of precedent or sets some sort of record, or triggers legislation, or changes society in some way. Kingturtle (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Patent dates

The date that a patent was granted doesn't seem all that notable except in the case of things like the lightbulb.

I would suggest all patent dates are not notable. The only thing that patent dates say are that person X had an idea, nothing notable about that. What that person does with that idea becomes the subject of notability discussions. Grouf(talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Births and deaths

The requirement that an entry have a Wikipedia article seems to be a little too lax. Many pages are filled with dates for people that no one knows or will ever care to know. Lately, there are many editors dumping 10 or 15 new names just because they can. Consensus needs to be reaffirmed that that only especially notable names should be listed but enforcement of that is often met with conflict. See this for discussion on what to do with excesses.

Per the linked discussion, I think that if the criteria is only that an article exists the lists should be complete and these should be done mechanically (categories or bot-maintained lists). Assuming we don't want complete lists in each day article the separate lists (or categories) should be linked, but then are there any births/deaths that should also be listed in the by-day articles? I think "no" is a defensible stance and have trouble imagining how any "super notability" criteria wouldn't be nightmarishly subjective. I suppose we could enumerate objective criteria like:
  • Leader of a country
  • Inducted into a sports hall of fame
  • Winner of a Nobel Prize, Oscar, Grammy, etc. (etc is problematic)
but creating such a list that doesn't reflect well established practice will likely be met by severe resistance. We could remove the lists to separate articles and have an unspecified "only the most famous should be listed here" fuzzy guideline and see what develops. Successful guidelines in general reflect prior practice rather than prescribe new constraints. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What about not having anything but a link to the births or deaths on this day articles? I'm not saying I really like it, but would it work? Or how about setting the criteria that the listed person must be the subject of a Featured Article? That could be managed. But then, there are probably some dopes with FA status. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Bare links to separate articles would work (that's the defensible "no" answer to the "should any articles be listed in the by-day articles" question), but unless the separate articles are meant to be inclusive with the only criteria being "article exists" and we come up with some automated way to maintain them, I think we've simply shifted (and spread) the maintenance problem from the "by-day" articles to these new articles. In any case, I think the first step is to come up with some automated way to maintain inclusive by-day born/died on lists for anyone with a Wikipedia article. I don't have any bots that work this way, but I think it wouldn't be tremendously difficult to write a bot that would enumerate through all members of the by-year born on and died on categories, read each article to figure out the born on and died on days, and compile the appropriate by-day lists. We'd lose the summary annotations from the current approach, although perhaps the bot could be coded to compile the lists first and then edit the by-day articles, adding a summary-less entry if no entry exists, deleting entries if no article exists, and leaving other entries alone. At a rate of one person per second (the bot has to read the article to figure out the born on and died on days), assuming we have on the order of 200,000 articles on people the bot could regenerate a complete set of by-day lists in less than a week (60 hours or so). This is enough work that it would probably be better done against an offline copy of the database. I could propose this at Wikipedia:Bot requests, but is this the direction we want to go? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Could the automated part be done by using a field in an infobox? A bot can pick it up and populate the list. Any article without an infobox would be excluded, but maybe all bio articles should have an infobox (in a perfect world). Separately, what about using WP:COREBIO for criteria for date articles? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with RickBlock here as regarding to not create something of a supernotability...as far as the technical details go, I'm completely lost. Lectonar (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:COREBIO is interesting - I assume you're thinking High or Top. These aren't exactly objective but might provide an informal criteria to use after yanking the current lists to separate articles. I think the first step is still to decide whether the lists should be yanked into their own articles, and assuming the answer is yes then pursuing an automated way to populate/maintain these lists. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about using a field in an infobox. For example, Albert Einstein uses template: Infobox scientist which has a "birth_date" parameter. This might be a way to figure out his birth date from the article, but figuring out Albert Einstein is an article we should be looking at in the first place is the first order problem the bot needs to solve. Are you suggesting looking at all the "whatlinkshere" to template:Infobox scientist plus however many other infoboxes might be used on any biography sort of article? Just a guess, but I'd expect there to be hundreds of biographical templates (checking - there seem to be 126 in Category:People infobox templates, plus another 49 in Category:Athlete infobox templates) and that they probably don't have a standard parameter name for birth date. The bot could look for some set of templates and and pick up the birth date up based on a parameter, although I think it would probably need to be able to parse free text (two dates separated by a dash, inside parentheses) as well, so looking for certain infobox parameters might not be worth the trouble.
Let's make this a concrete proposal. Is there general agreement that the current lists of by-day births and deaths are too unwieldy for the day articles and should be yanked into their own separate lists? If the answer to this is yes, we can work out the details for how to accomplish this. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that the current lists are bloated. But what are we thinking for the existing articles? Would there be any births or deaths left there? I'm thinking that there has to be. Otherwise what will make the date articles different from Template:SelectedAnniversary except more events? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I just want to note that according to the existing rules in effect at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, "Only the births and deaths of people who are themselves subjects of Wikipedia articles should be listed." In other words, all people with Wikipedia articles should have their births and deaths listed currently. I agree the lists are bloated, and personally I would like to seem them moved into categories so they would be complete. If there is a feeling that those categories themselves would be overly bloated and there needs to be a filtering mechanism so only "important" births and deaths are listed on a Day of the Year page, that should be a separate consideration. (SirBruce (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
I think the suggestion that the person have an article is meant as a minimum criteria - the current (bloated) lists adhere to this criteria. If we have complete lists, in whatever form (categories or separate list articles), the question is which births/deaths do we leave in the day articles? Mufka's point above is a good one (without any births/deaths what's the point of the existing articles). It seems like the proposal to excise the existing lists (and find some way to make them inclusive of everyone with a Wikipedia article) has to be linked to a new, more selective, criteria for which births/deaths to leave in the day articles. There are only about 200 WP:COREBIO TOP importance articles, so this seems a little too retrictive. I can't find a list of HIGH importance, so don't know how many there might be. It's interesting to note Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography is tracking almost 500,000 articles (1/4 of Wikipedia's articles are about people - who'd have thunk). Assuming even distribution of birthdays (which is probably not quite the case) if the current lists were complete they'd each have 1500 or so articles (and all these people will eventually die, so the deaths lists will grow to the same size). I think these numbers clearly indicate there's a problem. Maybe we should invite the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography folks to comment? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A few points. There is currently a mechanism being developed which will help rank all articles on a somewhat reasonable standard of importance for the WP:1.0 team. If and when that program or whatever it is in developed and enacted, that would obviously be a useful factor for this discussion. Beyond that, it might be possible to choose only those biographies that are rated at a certain importance level, say high- or top-, by one or more existing WikiProjects. That would still probably have a disproportionate number of entertainment bios, but it would be a possible starting point. From what I've heard, the importance bot is close to being operational, and it may be available within a month or so. I'll make sure to let everyone know when I hear more info myself. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

The recent changes to the page seem to be mostly in line with existing consensus except the addition of royal weddings. This was covered pretty well here and I think new discussion would need to take place to see if consensus has changed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That discussion was about the idea of adding a new section called Weddings. my inclusion of royal weddings on Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time is to cover events such as February 3: 1112 - Ramon Berenguer III of Barcelona and Douce I of Provence marry, uniting the fortunes of those two states. Kingturtle (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't totally oppose the idea, but I thought one of the good parts of the past discussion was to include only weddings that had articles about the weddings. My concern is also that the list would then include the wedding of some prince of a third world country. Royalty is royalty. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can find the right wording for it. Any suggestions? Kingturtle (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's tricky. I'm not sure. In reality, it seems like only European royalty gets prolonged worldwide coverage. I've been struggling with trying to find proper wording for this article for months. I've been hoping that other editors would jump in with suggestions. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 06:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Old royal weddings were business arrangements created to insure that power remained within small circles, and those are definitely important to note. Kingturtle (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Did those business arrangements affect people outside the borders of the states that had parties to the marriages? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(A) Yes, because, as in the example I cited above, it was merged two different power groups. (B) I think we need to move away from the hard line thinking of global effects. Kingturtle (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: (B) - I think that doing so would undermine the spirit and manageability of the project. I also don't think that such a change would gain widespread support. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on a proposal. Kingturtle (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Superbowl

copied from Talk:February 3 for more centralized discussion here

The 2008 Superbowl was broadcast in 232 countries. You are terribly mistaken if you think that it is not globally notable. Kingturtle (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Super Bowl happens every year. It is very predictable that it will happen next year. It isn't notable unless it breaks a record. If it were considered notable, every instance of every Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, World Cup, Wimbledon, French Open, US Open, etc. would be listed. Doesn't seem reasonable. The first Super Bowl is notable. Discussed here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mufka. This latest super bowl was just another game; nothing significant happened. Broadcasting does not make an event notable, it just means that a contract was signed. Grouf(talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't personally agree, but it seems a double-standard in light of many other sporting events being listed in similar fashions (I've seen world cup, NASCAR, Tour de France, other cycling, hockey, etc., championships listed). At any rate, if the Super Bowl is (as one user put it) "sports trivia", the others are as well, unless something made them noteworthy in a different manner (i.e., the olympic boycotts in 1980/84, or something like that). In other words, what makes the World Cup or Wimbledon any more significant/noteworthy than the Super Bowl? subsailor (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. The other things shouldn't be there, they just haven't been noticed yet by someone who cares. The reason the Super Bowl came up is that it just happened. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In terms of significance, this superbowl is the Second-most-watched TV Show Ever in U.S. history - second only to the final season of MASH. Kingturtle (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that the second-most anything is notable. The number for the Super Bowl seems to go up pretty predictably every year[1]. It was up about 4 million from last year which was up about 3 million from the previous year and so on. In about 2 years, the Super Bowl will surpass MASH and then it will be notable and MASH will no longer be notable. Also, I know that this is just a US number, but it pales in comparison to some of the international numbers. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability or editing guideline?

From Wikipedia:Notability: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Since the intent of this proposed guideline seems to be to regulate what articles are linked to on date and year pages (e.g. February 18 and 2008) rather than to guide decision on the inclusion or deletion of articles, this seems to be more of an editing guideline than a notability guideline. If this impression is accurate, then this page would be more appropriate as a part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that this is not about notability and should be renamed per BF's suggestion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The intent of this guideline is not to "regulate what articles are linked to on date and year pages". The intent of this guideline is to layout what criteria should be used to decide what events should be listed in the Events section of the date articles. This guideline is absolutely about notability and it is an attempt to establish a "super-notability", for lack of a better term, for date articles. Additionally, this project has nothing to do with the year articles (right now). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Notability: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Try to fit this into the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Your purpose is too obscure and the title is confusing. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Notability: "article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability". This guideline will be one of those "other" policies and guidelines. It specifically applies to the date articles and those articles need their own guidelines. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the content of the guideline, but since it is one of the "other" guidelines, it should not be presented as a "notability" guideline. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but it really is about notability (just a higher level). Do you suggest a simple name change? What do you suggest? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Renown? Significance? Importance? Éclat? Noteworthiness? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a name change and use of the word "significance" (or similar) in place of "notability", which has a specific meaning in the context of Wikipedia articles, would be enough. As for a page title, perhaps Wikipedia:Manual of Style (days of the year) or Wikipedia:Days of the year could work? Black Falcon (Talk) 06:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Global significance? Although the shortcut is already taken by Gender Studies (and I like shortcuts). Could use WP:GLOBAL. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think moving to Wikipedia:Days of the year would be good. The title would indicate that the guideline is specifically for the days of the year project. We are constantly arguing that the date pages are special pages within WP so lets have a special guideline specifically for the Days of the Year project. Our desire for this project seems to be at odds with the other WP:Guidelines. We are excluding based on notibility, but as Black Falcon pointed out Wikipedia:Notability doesn't exclude. Lets create a clear guideline that clearly sets the Days of the Year project pages apart from the rest of WP. Grouf(talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and No

I understand the effort to create notability criteria like these, but perhaps too much will be thrown away as a result. What would be wrong with having the top of each days page follow these guidelines, while having less notable events or regionally significant events listed in separate sections below. Many of the things specifically slated for removal are of interest to a great many people. The beauty of Wikipedia is (or should be) that it can be a "big tent" where many varieties of information can coexist. The alternative, determining what is "significant to a global audience" or "notable for everyone" is fraught with difficulties. The alternative approach I am suggesting is to replace significance and notability with transparancy. It would then be up to the user to decide which events were interesting, significant or notable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, everything that has been proposed is already practiced. The goal now is to codify most of what is already practiced. Many of the events that would be excluded can still be added to the month and year articles. Adding more sections adds another layer of management and makes the pages (which in some cases are already long) longer. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Move this page?

Since this proposed guideline will apply only to the Wikicalendar articles, it seems reasonable that it should be clear what the guideline refers to. As it was mentioned briefly above, I propose that the guideline be moved to Wikipedia:Days of the year. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all of the guideline type info from the WP:DAYS article. It seems more important now that the article be moved to Wikipedia:Days of the year because the birth and death stuff is in there. Otherwise, it might be confusing. I am going to move it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)