Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 6

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 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Move most birth/death entries to categories?

I think the only currently enforced qualification for listing in the birth/death lists is that an article exist. We have on the order of 100,000 articles on living people (and a fair number of articles on people who have already died) which I think means we're headed for 300 or more entries per day for the birth lists (and ultimately as many on the death lists). I suggest we:

  1. create "born on" and "died on" categories for each day
  2. add the appropriate by-day categories (by bot) to all articles currently in the by-year births and deaths categories
  3. institute highly restrictive guidelines for explicit inclusion in the birth/death lists in the day articles
  4. prune the birth/death lists, replacing the bulk of the entries with a link to the appropriate category, e.g.
    For a complete list, see People born on January 1

One issue with this approach is that categories are sorted alphabetically, while the current lists are sorted by year. We could add the year as a leading component in a sort key, which accomplishes the sort aspect but without displaying the year. To get the years displayed in a births-by-day category would require categorizing a year article in these categories. It might be odd to have 366 categories for each actual year article, so we could potentially create a redirect for each year (something like "2007_") and categorize the redirects. Or just let the categories be alphabetically sorted and lose the by-year sorting.

Manually maintaining these lists grows tiresome. If they're really going to become inclusive of all articles, I think categories are the way to go. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This idea is certainly worth exploring. I don't know how all the background voodoo would work to make everything pretty and the complexity might cause a problem. One task that I think needs attention before this discussion can go very far is a detailed discussion on notability for the Wikicalendar articles with the ultimate goal being a guideline or policy. Once that's done, this idea can plug right into that as a way to deal with all of the stuff that is not considered notable enough for "front page" inclusion. All of the previous discussions need to be summarized and another pass needs to be made to get a policy. The problem with that is that not many people are willing to contribute to these discussions. Where that leaves us, I'm not sure. A good start might be to archive this whole talk page and start discussion on the gray areas that always end up causing conflict while using the archive for reference and precedent. So, in closing, I think Rick Block's idea is good and is worth discussing but it represents something to work toward but much needs to be done to prepare for it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If folks would like to see an example, I could create a by-day birth category and categorize some articles into it (actually, it'd probably be essentially trivial for somebody who runs AWB to do this). With no sort key, a by-day category would look sort of like this (long list of names, arranged alphabetically, no indication of birth year). With a sort key, we could work out a scheme where folks are arranged by birth year - but it would be effectively voodoo to most people (Category:Integers uses sort key voodoo to show numbers starting with the same digit in numerical order - doing something like this for by-day birth/death categories would be as complicated but would affect far more articles). There is a potential for ongoing bot-assistance (the sort key for all articles categorized in any of these articles could be periodically automatically corrected by a bot). If anyone would like to see an actual example, speak up. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed lately that there are a few editors who are just piling birth and death dates into the articles. What if, instead of using categories, we just created a People born on January 1 article for all of the birth dates (an article for deaths too) and then set some objective criteria for inclusion of names under the sections in the date articles. The new article would have as its only requirement that the subject have an article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The beauty of using a category for this instead of an article is that it would nearly eliminate the need for any maintenance. You can't add a non-existent article to a category. People would no doubt screw up the category sort key (so it wouldn't be an entirely maintenance free solution), but I think the advantage of doing away with links to non-existent articles would be huge. An article per day could work, but I don't see it as being any less maintenance heavy than the current system. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that your average editor is more likely to add names to a list than hunt down an article and add a category to it. I'm trying to think what will be the easiest to implement and the most idiot proof. For example: if I look at an article that has 50 names listed but 10 are incorrect (wrong date), I can just edit the article to fix it rather than going to the 10 articles to fix the category. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I was doing some poking around and I came across this discussion which relates to categorization in dates. It looks like the category idea wouldn't gain support. But I'd still like to investigate the People born on January 1 article idea. Maybe we could put together a proposal and get some input. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just cleaning up some biography entries for Franklin County, Missouri and came across severak with birth/death dates that weren't listed on the days of the year. As I started adding them I ran into more and more biographies with the same problem. Categories seem to me to be the best way to go, since they are updated automatically. The only alternative I can see is to run an automated bot that culls birth and death dates from biography entries and generates a list that, once reviewed, can be merged by another program bot into existed days of the year lists. Still, this procedure would be prone to error. Can we somehow get the process started for birth/death date categories? (SirBruce (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

This discussion is being continued here. It's important to note that all of the births and deaths should not be on the date pages. That is not widely understood. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, per existing rules that are established ON THIS VERY PAGE, "Only the births and deaths of people who are themselves subjects of Wikipedia articles should be listed." So I'm afraid you're the one who has misunderstood; indeed as currently stands "all of the births and deaths" of people in Wikipedia should be on the date pages. (SirBruce (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
I'd be glad to discuss this further with you. If you will take the time to read the many archives of this talk page, you will see all of the past discussions that have gone into the development of the guidelines for the date pages. Notably you will see "Also, being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wikicalendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wikicalendar articles" in the same section that you quoted from "ON THIS VERY PAGE". I know what the intent behind the guidelines is and how they are applied. If you feel that the guidelines should be changed, please make a proposal to change them. As you likely know, consensus can change. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Patent dates

There are many patent dates listed in the date articles. I don't think that the patent of Portland Cement, Corn Flakes or Chewing Gum are globally notable. None of those changed any lives on a large scale. Things like the electric light bulb or the telegraph might qualify but I don't even think that the date of the patent is particularly notable compared to the date of invention. I understand that dates of invention might be a little illusive compared to patent dates. I suggest the removal of the obviously non-notable patent dates and invite further discussion on removal of all patent dates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


1- as long as there is no certain date of invention, date of patent is all we have got about inventions for sure. 2- why patent of for example chewing gum is not globally notable? because it did not change any lives on a large scale? true but appearance of things such as chewing gums always indicates and indexes a change in the way people live. they are about a change in people habbits. is not Portland Cement important enough to be listed by its patent day? Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2008

I just noticed that none of the days in any months say when it is in 2008.... --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be a little thick, but can you rephrase that, I don't understand. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, in each day of the year (For example May 15) it says what day of the week it is for the past few years. This has not been updated (as far as I know) for 2008. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I get it. I don't know how to fix it, but that won't stop me from trying. It's Template:ThisDateInRecentYears that needs to be fixed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. I'm sure I'll find out if I didn't. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I think it's fixed, how did you do it? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I put a note on how to do it on the template talk page here -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Grouping dates by year

Rather than having each year on a separate row like this (from the March_30 page):

which has the issue of years being repeated, some with links some without (why are some years un-linked anyway?), would it not make more sense to group dates by year, eg:

1970s

1970

1971

1972

1973

1975

1976

1978

1979

Robbie (Runsninth (talk)) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Strong Oppose - Management of a system of so many subheadings would be a nightmare. It also makes the pages longer. It would be nearly impossible to keep all of the date articles' format consistent. Some years don't have anything listed - would the headings be there anyway? As you can see just from this talk page, the format would make the TOC extremely long (like several pages). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
> Management of a system of so many subheadings would be a nightmare.
They don't need to be sub-headings - that was an error on my part. See below for a simpler version.
My point is not about the use of headings but the fact that in the current format for days of the year pages, each year is repeated multiple times. That's a waste of space and effort. Fast forward a few years and you could have hundreds of rows of date entries, each one beginning with, for example, "1976". That seems a very inelegant way to list dates to me. Surely they should be grouped by year?
> It also makes the pages longer.
I've amended my suggested format so that it doesn't take up any more space - see below.
> It would be nearly impossible to keep all of the date articles' format consistent.
That's possibly true of my first attempt but my second attempt (below) isn't really any more difficult to keep consistent than the original format. And it has the advantage of not having to keep entering the year whenever a new entry has to be added.
> Some years don't have anything listed - would the headings be there anyway?
No, you'd only have a year heading for dates in those years. You can see an example of this in my suggested format: there is no 1974. Of course, over time I would expect every year to be listed eventually.
> As you can see just from this talk page, the format would make the TOC extremely long (like several pages).
That's a fair point and I hadn't taken that into account. The years don't have to be headings.
How about this:
1970s
1970 Secretariat, American racehorse (d. 1989)
1971 Mark Consuelos, American actor
1972 Mili Avital, Israeli-American actress
1973 Jan Koller, Czech footballer
1975 Bahar Soomekh, American actress
1976 Mark McClelland, Northern Irish musician (Degrassi)

Ty Conklin, American ice hockey player
Obadele Thompson, Barbadian athlete
1978 Chris Paterson, Scottish rugby player
1979 Norah Jones, American singer and pianist

Simon Webbe, English singer
-- Robbie (Runsninth (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC))


Some are not linked since once one has been linked the others do not need to be. AS for the new style I like the idea however it wouldn be a HUGE change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Days-of-year-checking bot - community input wanted

I'm currently applying here for a permit to run a bot to check new additions to Births and Deaths, and revert those that don't have a link to a page, or have a "redlink" to a page that doesn't exist yet (possibly only in the case of users with only a few good edits). Feel free to comment there if you have any suggestions about this. It's also possible to detect entries linked to pages that don't mention the year in question, or to tagged disambiguation pages, though I'd like some guidance on what people think should be done in those cases. I'd also like some help developing a friendly and informative message that will explain what's going on, since I think a lot of the people adding their own birthdays to the list really don't get why this is not a sensible idea. I can post my drafts here if that'll help. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I have a lot of ideas on what a bot could do, and some might be beyond the scope for your bot. I'll put my questions here:
  1. Will it just do Births and Deaths, or can it do Events, Holidays and observances and External links too?
  2. Can it detect entries where the name links to another person's article? I don't mean disambiguation, but often editors will add their friend John Smith born January 29, 1992.
  3. Can it detect an event that doesn't link to an article that includes the specific date?
  4. Can it remove all future events?
  5. Can it detect entries that link to pages that are tagged for speedy deletion?
  6. Can it detect changes to the established template? By that I mean new headings, comment changes/deletions, linked templates.
  7. Can it detect certain key terms (Girl, Boy, Pimp, Legend, Hero, Icon, Citizen, Average, Random, Cool, Great guy, Amazing, Beautiful, Special, Sexiest, Hottest, and the interestingly common Badass)?
  8. Can it detect completely unlinked entries?
  9. Would it conflict with other bots like ClueBot on vandalism?
-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this list. If it's OK with you I'll copy it over here to answer, since the Bot Approval people will want to have any ideas run by them (and for the last one, would be able to give a more definitive answer) . Pseudomonas(talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to put it there, but I thought the details might be better hammered out here (input-wise). I didn't want to clutter up the proposal page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting behemoth sections

I propose a minor classification system in the ordering of dates in the "Events", "Births", and "Deaths" section of the date articles.

Here's what it looks like now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_1&oldid=187783938

And here's what I propose to make it look like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_1&oldid=187783838

Of course, I'd personally go through and do it all myself, but it's somewhat cumbersome to go through a thousand lines of text. In addition, my section divisions aren't that space-consuming, and they help a lot.

Lumberjake (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is similar to the proposal above and I oppose it for pretty much the same reasons. Primarily because it makes the TOC almost a whole page long. But I will say that I dislike this proposal less than the previous one. If it were agreed to be changed, we would get a bot to do it anyway. It isn't a reasonable workload to have one editor change the format on 366 pages. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, as a thought could you have the "present" be auto updated to whatever year it is now? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I dislike the proposal, as well, but concur it should be done by a bot. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A little more on the behemoth status of the sections: Most of the sections are not that large. But all of the sections are bloated with pseudo-notable events and births and deaths. See this for ongoing discussion on that issue. Also, see this and this and this for previous discussions on subheadings. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

sourcing

I notice that most of the events on Days of the Year pages are very poorly sourced -- only generic links to a couple news sites' "on this day" sites, and almost no footnotes. I would like to propose a new task for the group of bringing the Days of the Year into compliance with the Wikipedia:Citing sources style guideline. Comments? --M@rēino 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The date articles don't play by the same rules as most articles. They are really just lists. The source information for the entries must be located in a linked article. The entries act primarily as "teasers" and people who are interested in learning more about the topic are able to find more in the linked articles. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right Mareino; the some of the Days of the Year pages are sloppy and have non-notable events listed. Notability is being discussed here. Hopefully we can get some agreement and make this into a guideline. Recent events (within the last 10-15 years) pose some difficulty as everyone remembers them but the notability of those events is questionable. Because people remember them they think that means they are notable, and therefore can create a lot of discussion. Sometime we just have to let things and come back to them in a year or two. As for citing on the Days of the Year pages I would have to argue against it. I would like to see the pages as brief overviews of those days listing the major historical events. Adding cite references to each event would make the pages too long and rather ugly. As long as the main article is well sources then we only need a brief description on the Days of the Year pages. Grouf(talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Old style vs. new style dates

Generally, the new style dates are used for entries in Wikicalendar articles but I think it would be good to add that fact to the style guide. In rare instances, entries are listed on both the new and old style dates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


I agree. new style must be the rule and old style must be kept for exceptions. in wikicalendar, birth date of someone like Anton Chekhov better be mentioned in newstyle unless there is an annual global event for him on the oldstyle date. but it is irreasonable to mention an event like Russia october revolution on its newstyle date because it would not be on october anymore ! Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

what should be listed for births and deaths (2)

recently I had troubles about what should be listed for births and deaths and i also made troubles for others. I listed names of famous films of filmmakers and I listed famous inventions of scientists and inventors. almost all I did in this regard was reverted. I did not expect revertion because I saw the same pattern for Guitarists for example. atlast I reached to this sentence presented to me by user:Arthur Rubin :"It's the current convention that Presidents, royalty, nobel laureates, and musicians are further identified."
is it right ? is it the current convention ? anybody else beside athletes and their medals ? ok. I saw discussions on this issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 4 leaded by Fabricationary and I just made this number 2 post to see if these current conventions are temporarily agreed upon. if anybody remember anything else beside what I have mentioned then please write.
I suggest a guideline added to wikicalendar guidlines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year according to what should be listed for births and death. that would reduce confusions for newcomers like me. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to keep the entries short and sweet. Any additional information can be found in the linked articles. Redlinks are not useful in the calendar articles. The quote about presidents, etc. is not totally accurate and I'd like to see the context in which the statement was made - I'm sure there's more to it. There's only so much that can reasonably be added to an entry. The standard presidential entry is something like
A nobel prize winner would look like
These entries are not all that different from any of the others. Musicians usually get listed with their band because often musicians names are obscure and people wouldn't recognize them without the band and usually, they haven't been members of that many bands. I wouldn't be opposed to including one film with a filmmaker if it was a film that was widely known and had received a major award and the filmmaker was known particularly from that film. The film would also have to have an article dedicated to the topic. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

you may find the context - sure not the full context - at the bottom of this page: User talk:Arthur Rubin
Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New External Link

Please consider BlackHistoryDaily.com for the External Links section of the Days of the year.

Not only is this site a comprehensive resource for the African American community; there is a also static page for every day of the year which makes it relevant and applicable to all of the articles in Days of the year.

I have been looking for information on how to create a template similar to the New York Times daily update. The naming protocol on our site is http://www.blackhistorydaily.com/on_this_day/February_19/ (The monthname underscore day of month)

This addition to the day of the year will add diversity to the days of the year, the black community makes up over 12% of the U.S. population. I look forward to a reply. Bradhemmings (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Adding the link would give the impression that Black History is distinct and separate from all other history. History is history. Adding a link specifically for black history seems redundant because if the events are worth remembering, they'd be covered in the other links. The content also seems to be mostly lists of births which are covered in the Births section. Events such as first black ... are covered in Events. Incidentally, just to head off an argument that the other links are redundant, I would support reducing the links to one, but consensus exists for the three. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Black History deserves recognition and that is why there is a Black History Month in the United States. While Black History may not be distinct or separate from all other history it often gets lost or distorted. What others may deem not "worth remembering" may be of signifcant value to the black community. Canada is given its own section in the external links? Isn't Canadian history also history? Canadians would like to be able to refer specifically and directly to their own history and so would blacks. There is no-one better to tell your story than yourself. If Wikipedia is truly reflective of the World we live in, we should give everyone the opportunity to tell to access content that is important and relevant to them.Bradhemmings (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

By your argument we should include links for Jewish, Chinese, Left-handed, Bipolar, Dyslexic, and so on. That would be grossly unmanageable and highly redundant. Any notable event that would be listed on any of those would be listed in a general listing. Why does black history deserve recognition anymore than human history? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No thanks. These are top-level overview articles and should contain only links which cast the net widely, both culturally and geographically. Sympatico.ca should go, BBC "on this day" is more the sort of thing we need. External links are not for advocacy. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Project page roles

I think it is important to settle what the roles of the WP:DAYS and the WP:NGS pages will be so that they can be crafted accordingly. I propose the following:

  • WP:DAYS will be the main project page and it will contain a style guide for how the Wikicalendar articles should look. This includes the template and general format of how entries should be crafted.
  • WP:NGS (or whatever we end up calling it) will be the page that lays out the true guideline on what should and should not be included in the Wikicalendar articles.

-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Grouf(talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New calendar template

I've rewritten the template for the calendar that is on all of the Wikicalendar articles. The old one is {{JanuaryCalendar}} and the new one is temporarily at User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar. Here they are side by side for comparison (old on the right) Edited: {{JanuaryCalendar}} {{User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar}} Removed because they are both the same now End Edit. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight coloring and size difference can be fixed if needed. The reason for doing this is that the old one is dependent on Template:JanuaryCalendar2008 and Template:JanuaryCalendar2008Source and these need to be created each year. The version that I've written use only the Template:Calendar/MonthStartTue set of templates (one for each day of the week). The new version calculates what day the first of the month is and then uses that to create the calendar. It should be maintenance free. I'd like to get some input on it before I replace the templates. Another great feature of the way I did it is that it will only take 12 edits to the {{JanuaryCalendar}} templates to make the change. I'm also thinking that with just a little more work, I could turn the 12 templates into one. I also noticed that the MonthStartTue templates use Monday as the first day of the week. That can be fixed very simply with a new version of those templates if the existing ones cannot be changed (I already have new versions written). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done! Looks much better. I would suggest making it a bit wider as it looks a little squished, and maybe making the days of the week a slightly different colour to make it a little easier to read. I would like to see the week start on Sunday, but that just what I'm use to using, it should probably follow the international standard (if there is one for the start of the week). Also I noticed you didn't wikilink the days of the week in your new version, any reason for that? Grouf(talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: I think you might have been looking at a different version of the old calendar. A user had made a change to it between the time I posted my new one and the time you left your comment. I've since reverted it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I got distracted while writing that comment and didn't properly look at everything before saving my comment. I retract my squishy comment. Grouf(talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as linking the days of the week, I missed that and I'll do it. I will also make Sunday the first day. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the color and the Sunday first. It does look a little narrow. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't like the size difference, I think that the color and format is nice but the size (how skinny it is) looks a bit odd Otherwise nice job! . --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will work on the size. It is important to note here that there are some rumblings that the calendar on the date pages should not be an actual calendar for the current year. I am strongly against this. I'm starting a new section on this below. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I got the look almost identical to the old one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Something needs to be ironed out before I implement my templates - that is whether the week should start on Sunday or Monday. The most constructive discussion on the topic is taking place here. I don't want to create a new set of templates to support my templates when the goal is to reduce templates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've got all of the self-maintaning templates created. They are ready to be put in place. Here they all are:
User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar User:Mufka/FebruaryCalendar User:Mufka/MarchCalendar User:Mufka/AprilCalendar
User:Mufka/MayCalendar User:Mufka/JuneCalendar User:Mufka/JulyCalendar User:Mufka/AugustCalendar
User:Mufka/SeptemberCalendar User:Mufka/OctoberCalendar User:Mufka/NovemberCalendar User:Mufka/DecemberCalendar

-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work Mufka! Put them in whenever your ready. I'd offer my help but I don't know enough about templates and would probably mess them up.  :) Grouf (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've put the January version in place. I'll wait a couple of days to see if there are any issues discovered before putting the others in place. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done: All of the calendar templates have been updated. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I deleted all of the test templates, thus the redlinks above. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)