Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Selected anniversaries page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
 | This talk page is for general discussions for Selected anniversaries.
|
| This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
To make sure articles are not selected (bolded item) more than once, search for the article's name at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/All.
Articles for improvement
[edit]
Template for how many years ago something was
[edit]It would be nice to have the selected anniversaries in the On This Day section of the home page show how many years ago something was. For instance something that happened in 1925 would say:
- 1925 (100 years ago) – Whatever happened.
I suspect this could easily be done with some sort of template that automatically calculated the date, similar to ages on a person's infobox. Relinus (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
March events
[edit]I've gone through moving 2024 events in March to their 2025 dates. I haven't touched Night of Power as I cannot see how it works from the article, and Easter 2025 needs sorting out. Secretlondon (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
OTD entries based on non-calendar-based recurring events
[edit]The question is, if something happened on Easter (or Thanksgiving, or Passover, or Ramadan, or Diwali, or any anniversary that is not purely Western calendar-based) many years ago, can that be a valid OTD entry for the same anniversary this year?
This was briefly discussed last Saturday at WP:ERRORS in relation to a specific Easter-related article, where there was a lot of support for allowing this kind of anniversary. That article ended up not being posted due to lack of time, but a similar Easter Monday-related article was published today, based on that discussion. That discussion is here. But of course, ERRORS doesn't get archived, and someone has asked about today's article here. If we decide to keep doing this, I'd prefer there be a discussion in the OTD talk page archives to point to, instead of that ad hoc discussion at ERRORS. In addition, there's a question of whether we need to "clarify" somehow that this is the anniversary of the moving-date event, not the calendar anniversary. So I'm bringing it here for further discussion. I'll ping everyone involved in that in a moment. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Notifications of people in previous discussion: @Gerda Arendt, Ravenpuff, John, Launchballer, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, AirshipJungleman29, Narutolovehinata5, and PrimeHunter: Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, thank you for taking the trouble to raise this issue here. Forgive my intellectual economy (or laziness); I'm short of time, so I'll just repost what I said at the previous discussion. "I think this would be a very valid use of IAR, and Wikipedia does not run on precedent but on serving our readers well. Easter is on a different date each year but it is still Easter." I think the idea of a clarification, if it is unintrusive, is a good one, a foot note or similar, just pragmatically to so we don't need to explain every time somebody queries it. John (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is worth remembering that it s “on this day, not “on this date.” Only the most trivial definition- i.e. “today” -of these phrases completely overlap.
- You’d have [to] format the moveable feasts, second-Tuesday in May, &cet differently, or else you’ll reinforce the Main Pages reputation as Citogenesis Central. Qwirkle (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- I might not have been clear. Or maybe not understanding you. We do already move the anniversaries themselves each year (when someone remembers). Up on the top line. This is about, for example, having one of the bulleted entries saying something interesting happened on Thanksgiving in 1920, and including that for this year's OTD for Nov 27th, not Nov 25th (the date of 1920's Thanksgiving). Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nahh, you were clear enough; my apologies if I was not. I am saying that you’d need a robust, uncontrollably different format for anything that didn’t line up by date, lest it lead to confusion in readers and
Artificial IntelligenceAugmented Stupidity scrapings. Qwirkle (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nahh, you were clear enough; my apologies if I was not. I am saying that you’d need a robust, uncontrollably different format for anything that didn’t line up by date, lest it lead to confusion in readers and
- I might not have been clear. Or maybe not understanding you. We do already move the anniversaries themselves each year (when someone remembers). Up on the top line. This is about, for example, having one of the bulleted entries saying something interesting happened on Thanksgiving in 1920, and including that for this year's OTD for Nov 27th, not Nov 25th (the date of 1920's Thanksgiving). Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, thank you for taking the trouble to raise this issue here. Forgive my intellectual economy (or laziness); I'm short of time, so I'll just repost what I said at the previous discussion. "I think this would be a very valid use of IAR, and Wikipedia does not run on precedent but on serving our readers well. Easter is on a different date each year but it is still Easter." I think the idea of a clarification, if it is unintrusive, is a good one, a foot note or similar, just pragmatically to so we don't need to explain every time somebody queries it. John (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)