Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 14

Proposed change to banner
At the top of this page, there is a banner that says{

I think we do a lot more than what that says. Unless anyone objects, I would like to change it to read

Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. Deb (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Reasons for notability
I've come across a great many listings where the reason(s) for notability include things the person did in their early life, but which have absolutely zero to do with why we remember them now. Here are just a couple of examples from April 14:
 * 1916 – Don Willesee, Australian telegraphist and politician, 29th Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (d. 2003)
 * 1936 – Frank Serpico, American-Italian soldier, police officer and lecturer.

Yes, Willessee was a telegraphist as a very young man, before he went into politics. Then he gained leadership positions in his party and the parliament, and then became Foreign Minister of Australia. We remember him for his political/government achievements, not for once having been a telegraphist.

And yes, Frank Serpico was in the army for a couple of years before entering the police force and going on to fame in that context, only. We don't know or care about his undistinguished army record, not in this project. That info belongs in his article, sure. But not here.

So, without trawling through the archives, I have to ask whether this sort of thing is because of a consensus we've previously arrived at. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Nationality and accidents of birth
While you're pondering that one above, what about the descriptions of our subjects' nationalities. From 26 April:
 * 1894 – Rudolf Hess, Egyptian-German politician (d. 1987).

Yes, he was born in Egypt but in NO SENSE was he an "Egyptian-German politician". He was a German politician; I wouldn't even be happy with "Egyptian-born German politician", since his birth in Egypt was an accident of history that played no part in making him what he became. I've seen many, many similar examples in this project. They all need a rethink. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Signpost interview
For those that haven't seen it, please take a look at the article in this month's Signpost on this project. Toddst1 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

How much good faith to assume for sources in articles?
Hello! I thought I'd take a look at my birthday, February 19, and I have a question about how much checking is appropriate / necessary when adding sources. Is it assuming too much good faith if I cite something to a source used in another article that I can't personally check?

To make the question more concrete, on February 19 there is this statement: "Having already been elected to the throne of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1587, Sigismund III of the House of Vasa is crowned King of Sweden, having succeeded his father John III of Sweden in 1592." On the article for Sigismund III, there is this statement: "Sigismund was crowned at Uppsala on 19 February 1594" which is cited to "Szujski, Józef (1894). Dzieła Józefa Szujskiego. Dzieje Polski (in Polish). 3. Kraków: Szujski-Kluczycki. OCLC 717123162," p. 163. The Sigismund III article is a Featured Article so the source seems very likely to be accurate and appropriate, but I can neither acquire this book nor read it in Polish. Should I try to find another source for this fact & date? Or is the article still sourced well enough if I copy the Polish attribution? Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a question that I'm facing too, while adding refs to February 29. For now, I'm only adding those that I can personally verify or if the articles that I'm using to pull the sources are GA or FA. In the latter case, I'm relying on the diligence of the GA/FA review process. Ciridae (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Another point to note: you can try to reach out to another Wikiproject that has the article in question inside its scope. A native speaker might be able to help you out. I have started a discussion in the Talk pages of two such articles yesterday and I'll be posting to the corresponding WP Talk page soon. Ciridae (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would not trust any source that you have not verified yourself. I've found mistakes in dates in featured articles before, and you should not assume that GA / FA reviewers have checked all the sources during the review process: I think that usually they only do a spot check.
 * On the other hand, if you're willing to stretch to the Encyclopedia Britannica (which I found myself doing sadly often when sourcing DoY articles), my paper 1964 edition agrees with the Polish source you give above . Of course that requires you to AGF that I haven't just made that reference up, but I'm guessing the online version has the date as well.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if you're willing to stretch to the Encyclopedia Britannica (which I found myself doing sadly often when sourcing DoY articles), my paper 1964 edition agrees with the Polish source you give above . Of course that requires you to AGF that I haven't just made that reference up, but I'm guessing the online version has the date as well.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all! This is helpful to know. I'll be thorough when adding sources and leave for later the really tricky ones. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

New Notes section
Hi all, I'm proposing a change to the layout of the DOY pages - a new Notes section. The purpose is to move facts (some perhaps trivial) from the article lead to a separate section. I propose putting this under the existing Holidays and obervances section. For examples of changes I have made, please have a look at January 3, January 6, January 14 and January 20. I'll move whatever happens to be in the article lead, and leave it to others to judge whether the facts are actually meaningful or not, and whether to remove or edit them. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like what you're doing and thanks for starting this discussion. I think such a section would be useful, but I have concern about the title of the section.  "Notes" has been used synonymously for "References" routinely. See MOS:NOTES for an example.  This is especially prevalent in older articles or articles written by academics.  I'm wondering if a different term wouldn't be better.  What do other folks think?   Toddst1 (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with your concern about the term "Notes". A quick glance at the DOY articles for January - April indicates a few different styles, e.g. April 23 has both References and Bibliography, whereas March 9 has References and Sources. A couple of weird examples are February 21 and March 17 which have sub-sections within their respective References sections. I actually like the style of April 5 and April 6 - these both have an "Other" section. The title is very bland/generic, but that may suit the different sorts of subject matter currently in the article lead sections. Furthermore, this section could be used instead of hatnotes, although this would seem to be breaking with the overall style of Wikipedia. Kiwipete (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the structure that DOY articles are supposed to follow: WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template Obviously you've found some exceptions that we need to fix.  Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The typical lead is only one or two sentences, so there is room to include notable information about the date in the lead. We also want to include things in the lead that users may have been looking for by searching the date (e.g. September 11 attacks in the September 11 lead, January 6 attack in the January 6 lead). I could see it being useful if there were miscellaneous things about the date that aren't significant enough for the lead but don't fit into other categories, a scenario where some of your edits fall into. Regardless, if this were to become a section, the name would have to be changed from Notes like other users have pointed out (perhaps Additional information or Other, something along those lines). ~BappleBusiness[talk] 12:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Content which doesn't fit into sections
I tried to put some content about laws affecting a specific date which doesn't fit into the template, got reverted with a note (These additions are not specific events, births or deaths that occurred on this date), and it eventually got WP:3RRed. The template is clearly defective. I need guidance how I should put those content in. -Miklcct (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your account of the interchange at that article and its talk page is not quite accurate. Consensus is on the talk page that the material belongs someplace else.  Your focus is on "how" you can add it.   You should listen to the answer about "if."   Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)