Talk:February 12

Otto Ludwig
This list contains the birthday of Otto Ludwig. However, his page notes his birthday as being February 11. Would someone with more Otto Ludwig resources mind figuring out the correct birthday and updating things? Cww 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Red links
I saw in the history of the 12 February article that some user has deleted a red link. I think thats irreasonable. red links encourage people to make new articles. so give red links a chance. thank you. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Link removed because it was not his only film, and it's not common to link a filmmaker to his films in the date articles. Also, for the most part, bait redlinks are not included in date articles.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

1- it is common to mention a filmmaker films in "today in history" websites. I checked out the case after i read your message here and I understood that it is not common in wikipedia. why musics bands but not films ? it is irreasonable. but I accept it as an un-written Wikipedia guideline and act according to it. I suggest you (people in Wikiproject Days of the year) to write the policy about Births and Deaths secondary links clearly. 2- I quickly turned the redlink I made into a good link. I made an article for it. I would act according to this guideline in the future but i still assume redlinks harmless. redlinks would prevent some events and people in Calendar pages to be forgotten at all. being in red is better than not being at all. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Peanuts / Schulz
As a newbie, there's alot I don't know. I try hard to figure things out on my own, but sometimes (like this occasion) I get stuck. The last Peanuts comic strip ran in the papers on Feb 13, 2000. Someone had added it to this page's events. I edited it to reflect fact. Charles M. Schultz wrote the last comic strip on Feb. 12, 2000. Why is the original Peanuts comic strip having run in the papers the day after Charles M. Schultz died notable but Charles M. Schultz having wrote his final strip before dying later that day not notable? It's not my intention to make others have to follow behind me to remove or re-edit any edits I make. I accept there will be occassions, but I do want to TRY to minimalize my "bad" edits. For making you have to or feel as if you had do it, I do apologize. I sincerely am trying to grasp this. Input would be most helpfull.

This is not like: "Marilyn Monroe filed her nails for the last time before overdosing." Atleast, I don't feel it is. Marilyn Monroe fans may differ. Peanuts was (and still is) a significant piece of Americana, as is Charles M. Schultz. Kentholke (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is not really a valid answer to that, because we have no consensus; I try to include only events of global importance (not "Americana"). And the main thing to keep in mind is (at least imho) that we have the link to the pertinent article here (I didn't look it it is already in the article about him, but the fact that he died the same day he wrote his last comic strip would be a fact for the article, not a notable event). Stick around wikipedia a bit more, and after some years you will get a feel for the place (and even than it can still surprise you at a pinch). Lectonar (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you very much for such a quick reply and clearing some of my confusion up. I was under the impression (naive as it may seem) that there would have been some sort of overall consensus even on a minute scale. Of course, this revelation has brought a whole new confusion to my mind, but I'll try to figure it out. These are "project pages," are they not? A project where no one is in agreement? I'll try to figure it out.


 * Now I did use the term "Americana" for in the U.S., I'm certain many feel the same as I in regard to Charles M. Schultz and his Peanuts comic strip. Like you, I shy away from adding items of local or specific group interest only. I try to include items that would be significant to a substantial portion of the world's population. Being born and raised in the U.S., I'll also include items that affected the majority of the U.S. population in one way or another as well.


 * According to the Charles M. Schultz article - Peanuts ran for nearly 50 years without interruption and appeared in more than 2,600 newspapers in 75 countries. If that's not globally significant to some degree I'll eat my hat :)


 * I don't have to cross check that line from the article about 2600/75 because it seems right or dangerously close to being right. The link to the Charles M. Schultz article was included in the event, as was the link to Peanuts. I added a link to Cancer when I edited the event after seeing the article on cancer was a decent one.


 * Please do not misunderstand me. I'm not bent on the event being included. I personally would like to see it included because of who Charles M. Schultz was AND ALSO because I'd like to see Charlie Brown win one for a change. But if the event isn't included it's no skin off my nose, so to speak. Bear in mind, the 2000 event of "The last original 'Peanuts' comic strip appears in newspapers one day after Charles M. Schulz dies" is on the Feb 13 page. I am trying to decipher what makes one way of writing the same event "notable" and the other "non-notable." I have spotted many events I personally do not consider notable within the DOY pages, but do understand that others probably do consider (as evidenced by someone taking the time to include the event). Unless something goes beyond reason and appears notable only to the person who included it, I would not consider removing it without discussing it first. That, to me, seems proper.


 * According to Mufka's Talk page, there's clear instruction to leave any talk concerning date pages on the respective date page's talk section. Since it appears to me that Mufka edited it, I was hoping Mufka would chime in an "mentor" me with a paragraph where the dividing line lies between the event that was removed and the event that wasn't removed. Kentholke (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me start by rephrasing your question so I can be sure that I understand it. You are wondering why the event that explains Shultz' drawing the last comic is not notable while the publication of the last comic is.  The short answer is that I saw the former and I did not see the latter.  In any case, mentioning what really amounts to the same event on two dates is a bit much.  IMO, both lack significant notability.  They are interesting, but really just trivia.  With that said, you have as much say in determining notability as I do.  If discussion here forms a consensus that it is notable, then it is notable (and I might not like it, but that's how it goes).  Lectonar is technically correct that consensus does not exist in WP:DOY, but in reality and in practice consensus doesn't not exist by all measurable definitions.  Anytime when there is debate on notability, reasonable arguments are always considered and compromise is usually forthcoming.  I don't think anyone can convincingly argue that WP:DOY is not a guideline (by Webster's definition).  Guidelines are not "rules" but they help to "guide".


 * And a note on the message on my talk page: it is a good practice to have discussions about specific articles/events on the respective talk page and I have that message just to encourage organized debate. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, the event summed up is Schultz dies, Peanuts ends. I agree 100% with not having the same event listed on back to back pages. I've had my head in these DOY pages since late October and have noticed approximately 20 events listed again and again (i.e., Guy Fawkes arrested, Guy Fawkes trial begins, Guy Fawkes is executed). Different events, yes. Same story, yes. I also think it is too much. I did not feel comfortable removing the Feb 12 reference to Schultz, certainly part of my newbie status. When in Rome, do as the Romans. I'm in that phase right now of trying to learn what it is that Romans do.

Every Christmas since the late sixties, A Charlie Brown Christmas has aired across the U.S. and according to my closest friend who grew up in the U.K., still resides thereand is as old as I, it has been aired across the U.K. as well. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown is aired every Halloween, Be My Valentine, Charlie Brown airs every Valentine's Day, A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving airs in the days leading up to Thanksgiving. Dozens of other Charlie Brown specials air nationwide in the U.S. and in the U.K. at various points throughout the year during primetime.

According to the WIKI article, after the Valentine special was originally aired, children all over America sent Valentines to Charlie Brown out of sympathy. To me, and it seems to some of the people who read 2600 papers around the world in 75 different countries, Peanuts is not trivial. Proof is within the TV network conglomerates in the U.S. and U.K. airing these specials during primetime—every year. That's huge bucks I strongly suspect. Would the conglomerates air something trivial to increase their profit?

I am struggling to understand (and for this I have to apologize) how something that is revered in 75 countries is less notable than this page's events of:


 * 1719 - The Onderlinge van 1719 u.a., the oldest existing life insurance company in the Netherlands is founded
 * 1825 - The Creek cede the last of their lands in Georgia to the United States government, and migrate west.
 * 1914 - In Washington, D.C., the first stone of the Lincoln Memorial is put into place.

How are these three events considered to be globally significant? They are not. The first is geared toward the Netherlands and certain people who would be interested in the history of insurance companies. The second is geared toward the pro-Indian movement and U.S. historians. The third? U.S. historians, maybe, but I doubt that. The civil rights movement? I doubt that as well. Architectural historians? I find that hard to swallow also. It's simply a "first." If we stop to list the "first" house that was built in every town around the world (which I hope we can agree that a house is generally more significant than a stone), how would this page look?

According to the WP:DOY page, ''When compiling lists of Events for inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year articles, it is necessary to keep in mind that what's listed should be notable both around the globe and throughout time. The items selected should be relevant to all Wikipedians, regardless of nationality, interests, and beliefs.'' The page does go on further to explain Births and Deaths.

If one was to adhere strictly to this guideline, these pages would be quite bare I do believe. I think common sense should continue to be applied as it has been in permitting substantially notable events that don't fall within that guideline(s) to be listed. Who's common sense, you ask? A general consensus. How do we go about determining what the general consensus is in this case? You tell me. I'm new here. My vote would be to have the reference to Schultz and Peanuts added to one day due to the 50 year/2600 paper/75 countries details, and I would vote for it to be on the Feb 13 page exactly as it is now.

I was only trying to understand why "Schultz dies, Peanuts ends" was notable written one way and not the other. Your answer: you think it's trivial and you didn't see the other reference on Feb 13. I got the answer I was seeking, now I'm a happy camper. Thanks! Kentholke (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are mostly in agreement. The only thing I disagree with is that the event should be listed at all.  His death is already listed under the Deaths section.  But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.  So consensus exists.  You want it there, I don't, but I don't care.  Consensus.  Now if someone else comes by and says they think it should be excluded, discussion can start again until a new consensus is formed.  Have a look at this drawing.


 * It's a continuous battle of "why can't my event be listed when this other stupid one is?" There are many events that really don't belong.  But the newest ones always get noticed first.  The goal of WP:DOY is to make the articles as useful as possible to the largest number of people.  In reality, it is entirely subjective.  But the real meat of the matter is that we want to keep out events like "Joe Schmoe was the first to ever say the word cabbage on the radio."


 * As a general rule, you should be bold. Don't worry that you're new.  Everyone is new at some point.  And everyone that is not new should know enough to respect WP:BOLD.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mufka, I agree that we seem to agree mostly. If his death is listed in this page's death section, as I feel it should be, then adding an event in this matter shouldn't be appropriate. Something more major...? Possibly. Charles M. Schultz, no. He was big to many but his death and the events associated with his death did not make the world come to a screeching halt. I see no reason to stretch any boundaries in this case.


 * Please remember, I'm not bent on having the event, I just feel a substantial number of people/readers/Wikipedians would be interested in it for many years to come.


 * As far as the February 13, 2000 event listing, I suppose a rewording would be in order, something to the order of:


 * "After fifty years of uninterrupted daily publication, Charles M. Schultz's original comic strip "Peanuts" appears in newspapers for the final time."


 * The articles on Charles Schultz and on Peanuts both clearly indicate early into them the "original" version of his comic strip ceased upon his death on Feb 12. A rewording such as this would address the "deaths in the events section" issue. A rewording would be my idea at compromise instead of complete concession for either of us. I also think that anyone else who might be viewing this discussion consider adding their opinion in effort to find a more general consensus. Right now, not having heard further from Lectonar, it's two to one with me on the losing end. Unless anyone else chimes in with an opinion to keep the reference (event), reworded or otherwise, I feel it should be me to "bow gracefully" in letting it be removed.Kentholke (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chiming in a bit late here, as I do this from work and don't work on weekends, I'd rather say we have a 1-1-1 situation here, as Mufka has a slightly different approach as to why he would not include it. I'd say, nobody will complain if you put it in. Lectonar (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see how a comic strip ending can be considered an important world event. Schulz' death is in the Deaths section of this article; I can't see a justification for adding him or anything he did to the Events section of any Day or Year article. The first comment in this section claims Schulz wrote his last comic strip on the day he died. That cannot have been the case; he had to stop working due to illness. There is no way he could have done anything other than lie in bed on the day he died of colon cancer. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2010
The winter olympics are on the 12 this year(2010) Also tommoro is abraham lincons birthday(same as winter olympics thi year) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.125.205 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The starting date of the Olympic games does not get listed on the date pages. You won't find any listed (except maybe the first modern games).  This is because the Olympics are planned events and the starting date is not of particular historical significance.  You might find it listed in 2010 but not here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Abraham Lincoln is in the Births section. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.25.42 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Woodard - Touch of Evil???
What does the "Touch of Evil" movie have to do with the Isaac Woodard incident? Thisdaytrivia (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on February 12. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121208175938/http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/on_this_day?mth=Feb&day=12 to http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/on_this_day?mth=Feb&day=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Holidays and Observances - National Freedom to Marry Day and Sexual and Reproductive Health Awareness Day (Canada)
I don't think these two days fit in the criteria noted at Days of the year/Holidays and observances. Neither is notable or official - "Awareness observances are often minor creations of non-profit or private groups. These observances should not be placed in the Holidays and observances section unless the day is proven notable or has been passed into law, making it an official national day." and "In general, new holidays and observances should not be placed in the Holidays and observances section; except if it is signed officially by a state or a country as a state or national holiday. New holidays that do not belong to this category can only be placed in the Holidays and observances section after the days are proven notable, with significant number of followers, and are not controversial." --2607:FEA8:D5E0:A24:ED48:C7E0:5F2A:EF7F (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Shall they be removed? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It's not listed in the linked wiki article anyway, which confirms its un-notability.--Rochelimit (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you say Darwin Day likewise is more an awareness day than a holiday or observation? based on the linked article2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:75FD:9C5:E8BC:345A (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, and 'national freedom to marry day' too. both should be removed. otherwise, why not 'whipped peanut butter cupcake day' again?142.163.195.167 (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019
Add Feb 12 2019 - The Toronto District School Board (largest school board in Canada, 4th in North America) closes all admin sites and schools for the day, the first and only time since the board amalgamation of the districts of Toronto.

Wiltronn (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how this is an event of historical significance, given the lack of references you are citing and the current state of the Toronto District School Board article. I would suggest you try and improve that article first. Deb (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ya, this is fairly unique. It's of regional significance. Picard102 (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The only quoted reference does not support this conclusion. Deb (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019
Add under Births 1978 Toyshika Peterson, Infamous Internet Star Toyshika (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It would appear that this person is not infamous enough to have a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:BIRTHDOY. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 name change for Macedonia not source
I thought every new entry had to be sourced? so why is the 2019 entry about the name change of Macedonia not sourced and allowed to remained on the page without a source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.70.125 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that one out. Deb (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

2021 New Year
I think the Chinese New Year is on Feb 12 2021. Should I add it? Azpineapple (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, because it happens every year and is always on a different date. Deb (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)