Talk:September 1913 (poem)

IP comment
I am really not a fan of the style section, it reads like it was written by a 15 year old English Literature student. Highly subjective and not befitting an encyclopedic style. Suggest it is revised by an authority beyond undergraduate level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.230.45 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2015
Please note that there is a discussion at Talk:September 1913 (month) wherein there is now a proposal to move this article to September 1913, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please discuss at that location, as the issue is mostly about which article should be moved. Evensteven (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Massive number of false incoming links
, after the page move, we now have a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/September_1913&limit=500 massive number of false incoming links]. basically, all the calendar templates assume that  is a date, and not a poem. any idea on how to fix this problem? recoding all of the calendar templates would be a royal pain in the ... Frietjes (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked into the tweaking the template after the move but it was beyond me. The problem is that even if we put the dab page at the 'base' title we'd still have the same problem and I don't think there is a good argument at all for the month being the primary topic. Just so we can see what our options are, could you explain if recoding the template would be feasible and, if so, how much work it would be? Jenks24 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , recoding all the templates would be a massive amount of work. as far as a "good argument" for "the month being the primary topic", I am giving you one right now. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , comments? Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe start a new RM and explain the predicament? Not trying to be flippant, but there was a consensus for the poem to be the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * nevermind, I just added another layer of complexity to three different calendar templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about all the template work, Frietjes. I'm afraid the circumstances still did justify the article move. Couldn't be helped. Evensteven (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "couldn't be helped", is again ignoring the obvious solution. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it rather funny you're asking for my opinion here, as I was against the move in the first place. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I pinged everyone who was involved in the move discussion. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)