Category talk:Days

Dumb Format

What is with the dumb format on the individual days pages? I mean like October 20, that makes no sense at all in the English language. Shouldn't it be 20th of October or at least October the 20th? October 20 sounds like October of 1920, like it is the 20th in a list of Octobers not days within October. - Josquius

A response: I think the current convention is as good as any. The most important thing, in my opinion, is consistency. - Pomakis 16:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What about fictional birthdays?

A lot of characters in various books, manga, anime, and video games are given fictional birthdays. Does anybody think that these birthdays should be added to a regular day page (like January 1, for example)? They could even be under a heading; "Fictional Birthdays". ~MoogleFan

Rather than having a heading for "Fictional Birthdays", perhaps a more general "Fiction" heading would be better. This would allow for all sorts of fictional events to be listed. There are already some examples of this on some day pages. For example, November 12 lists a fictional event. - Pomakis 16:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) ~MoogleFan

I just want to show my support for the addition of fictional events to the days. I have a list of fictional birthdays already and would be glad to assist, not that Wikipedia doesn't have all of them already.

February 27
Can anyone explain to me why February 27 does not show in this category? None of the Day articles seem to have the Category explicitly entered; does it come together with the "months" template that seems to be included in them at the bottom? February 27 also includes this template, but doesn't show up in the category. --Brian G 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I made an edit to February 27 which reloaded Template:Months that adds the category. Now the page appears in this category. "action=purge" didn't work. -- User:Docu


 * Thanks. I was also trying to figure out how to get March 2004 out of this category.  It looks like whatever you did fixed that also. --Brian G 12:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)