Talk:Valentine's Day/Archive 3

Add romantic holiday to the first lead paragraph
My edit to add information about the romantic aspect of the day in the first paragraph of the lead was just reverted as original research (as if I'm the only one who knows about it). Not including a mention of it there seems counter to an encyclopedic article about Valentine's Day, and now that the views are up to 20,000 daily this should be quickly addressed. After that revert I'm more likely to agree with about lessening the religious aspect in the lead, especially in the first two paragraphs where romance or the commercialization of romance isn't mentioned. Does this need an RfC to include the romantic vision of holiday (its common usage) in the first lead paragraph or can we just agree to add it? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How long has it been like this, without the romantic holiday being in the first lead paragraph? If nobody objects I'll move my reverted edit (maybe with a slight edit) back into the page again later today. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Randy Kryn, the introduction of the article already emphasizes the romantic nature of the celebration, as it states "The day first became associated with romantic love within the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the 14th century, when the tradition of courtly love flourished. In 18th-century England, it evolved into an occasion in which lovers expressed their love for each other...". In fact, the entire third paragraph is devoted to discussing this. I strongly disagree with removing any of the historical/religious background from the lede as this is equally important to the context of Valentine's Day. In the spirit of compromise, however, I suggest that we modify the second sentence of the lede, to state: "Valentine's Day is recognized as a significant cultural, religious and commercial celebration of romance in many regions around the world, although it is not a public holiday in any country". This revision includes all three aspects of the commemoration and also mentions that it is a "celebration of romance". What are your thoughts? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That works well if users agree (how about a comma after 'religious'?). As long as it's in the first paragraph, which is what any reasonable reader would expect (or what's that guideline, WP:ASTONISH, I don't know if it fits but it sounds like it would). Adding the sentence you propose into the lead then covers all the bases, which would need to be covered in the initial introduction of an encyclopedic page on Valentine's Day. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the request. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Randy Kryn, you're very welcome. Indeed, the additional of a serial comma would be fine. Feel free to implement our agreed change to the lede as you see fit. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, VD is not a civic holiday, which the lede says; it's on many published calendars, but so is "Daylight Savings Time Begins" (and, on mine, "Tax Day") so that does little to cement its status.

And being a "feast day" doesn't make it a church holiday, even for Catholics, who need at least four "feast days" per day to duly honor just their core 1,400 saints.


 * A holiday is a day set aside by custom or by law on which normal activities, especially business or work including school, are suspended or reduced.

FWIW, I had no intent whatever to float the idea of "removing any of the historical/religious background from the lede" — rather that its roots should be described, then any further claims to religiosity end by turning the reader to Saint Valentine — almost all of the Saint Valentine section should be removed as better served by that article. VD is at best an observance, an early "hashtag holiday" somewhere between "National Peanut Butter Day" and "Secretary's Day" in significance. Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with Weeb Dingle's problematic suggestion. The celebration owes its name and early roots to Saint Valentine. Had it not been for the Church selecting this day in the calendar for his feast, it would not be celebrated. Most articles describing feast days of the Church (that others have also joined in to celebrate, e.g. Saint Patrick's Day) include a short biography, with an internal link to the main article. This article does the same and there's no reason to change it. Capitals00 (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding Finland
I'd like to add the info on Finnish tradition:

Finland

In Finland Valentine's day has been recognized since the 1980s. It was officially added to the calendar 1996, but it's not celebrated as a public holiday. It's not associated specifically with romantic love, but as "Day of friends". The event is marked with similar traditions as elsewhere with cards, small gifts etc. given to friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTal69 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022
"ConfectionAry" is spelled incorrectly. The correct spelling is confectionEry. 2603:8080:D100:9BA2:466E:4635:FCC1:CC9A (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Corrected; thanks for pointing it out. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020
2600:387:6:982:0:0:0:15 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Valentine’s Day, is also a day of coochie smoothy’s
 * ❌ Wikipedia is not for jokes. If you would like to propose serious improvements, please do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

gratuitous bloat
The article is largely an ever-growing list of fancruft, unfounded trivia. At 107K, the resultant bulk vastly outweighs the topic's importance. Rather than including every VD outcropping worldwide, all that stuff deserves to be removed, because either Choose one. Synthesis remains synthesis, whether a mile-long list is created by one editor or by a hundred.
 * 1) if it's at all significant, then BY DEFINITION there is a similar (likely better) list published somewhere else, which ought to be cited in the article and otherwise minimally reproduced here, or
 * 2) no such list(s) exist, therefore the information isn't significant enough to deserve inclusion in a Wikipedia article

VD is not really "a holiday" because NOBODY gets job vacation, there are no parades, and government offices continue to function. (I at least get a paid day off for Citizen's Day.) What is celebrated IS NOT a Catholic feast day of any significance, and I'm pretty sure no Pope has sanctioned Hallmark Cards or Fanny Farmer as purveyors of official indulgences.

Because of all the useless padding, the page is bulky, unwieldy, reader-unfriendly, and likely a bad match with smartphones. Per Too much detail,
 * ''…one should consider the significance of his/her additions. Is it something the topic is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability? Any indiscriminate detail should be removed. Readers might lose interest when a portion of an article goes into too much detail on one specific aspect. Other times, readers might question how so much detail on something is important to the topic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject.
 * When an article or section has too much content and becomes bloated, it is common for other editors to place the Overly detailed or Very long tags within an article. In such instances, delete details that can be reasonably removed.

Per Article size:
 * {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="background:none;"

Inarguably, WP articles on holidays and "holidays" are frequent target for fanboy bloat. Comparisons: Christmas stands at 164K, Halloween at 146K, Thanksgiving (United States) 106K, New Year's Day 47K, Saint Patrick's Day 82K, Yom Kippur 51K, Hanukkah 95K, May Day 45K, Martin Luther King Jr. Day 29K, Arbor Day 32K, Flag Day (United States) 19K.
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;"| Readable prose size || What to do
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;"| &gt; 100 kB || Almost certainly should be divided
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;"| &gt; 60 kB || Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;"| &gt; 50 kB || May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;"| &lt; 40 kB || Length alone does not justify division
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center; width:10%;"| &lt; 1 kB || If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Stub.
 * }
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;"| &gt; 50 kB || May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;"| &lt; 40 kB || Length alone does not justify division
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center; width:10%;"| &lt; 1 kB || If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Stub.
 * }
 * style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center; width:10%;"| &lt; 1 kB || If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Stub.
 * }

So, ship the trivia elsewhere, or delete it entirely. Knock the article size back below 50K — though I doubt it'll support even 40K.

Rather than simply eliminate the nonsense (beginning with the unsubstantiated claims), I will gladly create Saint Valentine's Day around the world.

There's your discussion. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be forgetting that references and lots of other things aren't counted as text when measuring length, so this page is fine. Trivia is fine too, and of course it's a holiday (?) (try getting by Valentines Day in many countries if you're dating or married without considering it a holiday). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hugs for Soldiers and Conversation Hearts
Really? A photo of the candies and no mention in the text?

Also, see this.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Request of Help
I was looking for some small help. I created an article Valentine's Day in Pakistan. While article subject orientation is related to Romance relationships and festival, but in some parts of the world it touches serious issues like violations of women's rights & Human rights At this stage looking for help in better chronological order within article, and continued copy edit help in times to come.

Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

1. No reference to the use of "valentine" as one's special lover on the holiday / 2. Valentines Day as an alternative colloquial name/spelling?
I'm not a regular contributor, so I can't make edits on a semi-protected page. I was surprised to see almost zero acknowledgement that the word valentine is popularly used to refer to one's unique or special lover/love interest on the holiday. (It is only indirectly accounted for in a handful of sample excerpts of Valentine's Day poetry or valentines (cards/letters).) Perhaps a brief note to this effect could be added under the "Celebration and status worldwide" section, where the use of the word valentine in reference to the Valentine's Day cards is documented. At the same time (as was my original interest when I discovered this gap), one could mention that an alternative name for "Valentine's Day" is actually/arguably "Valentines Day" (i.e., without the apostrophe) based on indirect/subconscious reanalysis of the holiday name as being the day for "valentines" (i.e. day of lovers on this day officially known as (St.) Valentine's Day) as opposed to the day named after St. Valentine.
 * Good points, thanks. Will look at the source you mention, and hopefully others will add too this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Iranian Valentine's day article proposed move
It has been proposed @ Talk:Opposition to Valentine's day in Iran page that Opposition to Valentine's day in Iran be renamed and moved to Valentine's day in Iran. Requesting all wikipedians interested in the topic to share their opinions @ Talk:Opposition to Valentine's day in Iran.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)