Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 4

What should be listed for births and deaths?
Lately I've gone through many Wikicalendar pages cleaning up enties for births and deaths. I've been making sure each entry consists of both nationality and one succinctly-stated description of that person's (most) notable role. I've been shortening stuff like " *1930 - John Doe, American scientist, physician, physicist, and cardiologist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine " to *1930 - John Doe, American scientist, Nobel laureate for a more succinct presentation. In terms of content and length, I don't think birth entries should be CVs, and I don't think death entries should be obituaries. To learn about a person, a visitor can click on their link, so a mini-biography or an entry longer than all other entries on the page isn't needed on a Wikicalendar page (i.e. if the person's description streches all the way across the page and goes to a second line, it's too long). Any thoughts on this?

Also, besides noting the people who are Nobel laureates, should any other specific awards be mentioned on the Wikicalendar pages under births or deaths? In my opinion, only notable international awards should be mentioned, and the Nobel Prize is probably the most notable award given to scholars in different fields. Should any awards be listed for athletes? The obvious choice might be to list those that won the Olympic Gold Medal, but since there are so many Gold Medalists, multiple Gold Medalists, and a case for then including Silver and Bronze Medalists as well, I don't support their inclusion on the Wikicalendar pages at this point, unless someone can convince me :). Fabricationary 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fab, first of all i wanted to thank you for all your hard work. at one time i had all 366 days in my watchlist. i know how consuming it can be. for now i am only watching the days of august.


 * i think you're right. descriptions should be short and sweet. country of origin and occupation, title or honor is all that should be needed. maybe rather than Olympic Gold Medalist, Olympic swimmer would work. keep up the good work. Kingturtle 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Kingturtle, and sorry that it's taken this long for me to reply. I like the Olympic idea you suggested - I'll use that the next time "Olympic Gold Medalist" gets added to someone's description.  Fabricationary 06:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you folks reach consensus on this question? I understand the concern about there being so many people in wikipedia with so many awards & distinctions. (We'd probably all groan upon seeing "People's Choice Award Nominee" showing up on these pages.) On the other hand, my own personal sense of "notability" tells me (e.g.) that Michael Johnson, born September 13, who won multiple Olympic & world championships golds, and who holds multiple world records, might deserve more than "American athlete". I'm happy to stick with an established standard. Can someone enlighten me? Hult041956 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The future of this Wikiproject? Becoming a portal?
As mentioned above, it is very likely that eventually the lists of events, births, deaths, and other observances will become too long to be listed on one page. For example, for some reason, lots and lots of stuff has happened on July 20, making the page already 30 kb long. As we look to the future of the project, do you all have suggestions?

An idea I have been considering is creating a portal that each day features the current date. That's something that I don't have much experience in, but I was thinking that the current "selected anniversaries" box could be featured prominently, linking to a page just listing events (and maybe observances/holidays too) that happened on a certain date. Other side boxes could link to a births page and a deaths page, or just one page encompassing both.

This might perhaps ameliorate some of the issues encountered in watching the current Wikicalendar pages. Editors tend to post current events that may or may not be significant over time on the events section, so perhaps a more prominent space could be given to the "this date in recent years" box currently on the pages, such as "Are you looking for events that happened on August 23, 2006/2005/etc?" Perhaps links could also be given to pages like 2006 in sports, 2006 in music, 2006 in television, etc., since many edits I've redirected these days come from folks treating Wikicalendar as their personal (upcoming) events calendar. On the same note, we might be able to amend "Events" to a more descriptive title like "This day in history..." or "Significant global events" (with a link to the proposed policy?).

However, I think most frequent editors to the Wikicalendar pages would agree that the biggest issue is the addition of non-notable people (redlinks or no-links) to the pages. If births had their own separate page that is not linked to the Wikipedia main page, then hopefully 1) it would be less visible to casual editors who want to add their birthdate and 2) more tags could be placed at the top and bottom of the page asking people not to add their own birthdate, etc. As it is, if you want to edit any Wikicalendar page and just click "edit this page" at the top, you have to do quite a bit of scrolling before reaching the middle/end of births, and it may be that at that point you haven't seen the "do not add people without Wikipedia articles..." tag after all that rapid scrolling. A specialized births page, also, might allow us to put a tag or template at the top in good humor reminding editors that this isn't the place to tell everyone about their birthday.

Of course their are cons - the most blatant being that there would be about three or four times as many pages to watch as before. However, if received well, there might be less "vandalism"/unhelpful edits than before.

Any thoughts or other suggestions? Fabricationary 06:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I should point out that July 20 is a bit of a special case, because User:PedanticallySpeaking decided to stuff it to the gills with all manner of trivia and images (29 images, as I recall), and probably everything that should go hasn't been weeded out (though two stabs at it, by myself and Rklawton have been attempted). See User:PedanticallySpeaking/July_20 for the full original horror, all 72 KB of it not counting the image sizes.


 * The obvious way, it seems to me, to cut down Birth sections is exercise a little judgment -- as with events -- and weed the sections as necessary. I deleted one ludicrously minor actor's birth from one page and it was reverted by User:Rklawton, who left a prim little note on my talk page informing me that because the person had an article, they were automatically entitled to a listing -- despite the reality that the person probably didn't deserve the article to begin with. Having a Wikipedia article for a subject should be minimum requirement, not the only one. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the no-links/redlinks thing, surely this could be relatively easily enforced by a bot? Having it on a less prominent page would possibly make things worse rather than better, as scrutiny would be reduced as well. Pseudomonas 10:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Calton and Pseudomonas.


 * Calton, I think it would be extremely hard to establish and enforce a "notability" policy for births. For events, we have this one, and if events did happen that aren't notable on a global scale, I find that they can usually be redirected to some other article like 2006 in sports, August 2006, etc.  If we enforce notability for people, it could lead to edit warring ("I don't think he's notable/as notable as..."), and removed names could not be transferred elsewhere like events could to satisfy the editor who added them.


 * I also shuddered in horror upon seeing PedanticallySpeaking's version of July 20 :).


 * Pseudomonas, having a bot take care of the redlinks/no-links would be awesome and save me and other frequent editors to the date pages lots of work. I don't have experience with bots, but it would be great if such a bot could be created.  Just a few (minor) things/situations that the bot would probably not be able to deal with - 1) Sometimes it does happen that an editor is trying to add someone with an article to the list, but he or she doesn't get the link correct; 2) If Joe Johnson, a 10-year old kid who plans to be a World Series-winning pitcher, adds his name to a date page, it won't be a redlink, but he doesn't have an article, so that would still have to be weeded out by hand; 3) If someone adds someone with an article to the wrong date page (as often happens when a notable person dies), a bot probably couldn't fix that.  However, all things considered, I think a bot would be an overwhelming benefit to the project.  Fabricationary 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm working on writing a bot for this. One thing I'm considering is to enforce that the linked page must mention the date somewhere on it, so if Joe Johnson was born in 1950, 1960, 1980, or 1981 it'll be OK, otherwise it'll be disallowed. This is somewhat adding new rules, but I don't think it's the end of the world. Pseudomonas 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pseudomonas, that sounds great. I don't see how that's really adding new rules since the rule is that only people with Wikiarticles can be listed, so a link to a disambig page that doesn't match a description on the dab page is most likely a person without an article. Fabricationary 06:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it'd cut in if a person's article didn't have a birth/death year mentioned on it. OTOH, I think that's an omission worth flagging up immediately. Pseudomonas 07:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that this message can be the one given by the bot to users who add redlinks/people without articles? It's the one I've been using recently - not a warning, but a brief clarification of the rule.  I feel that in general, the people who add their own birthday to the list are acting in good faith, so a friendly note is warranted telling them why their edit was reverted - very few continue those edits afterwards.  Also, is there any way the bot can restore the tags at the bottom of the "Births" and "Deaths" section asking editors not to insert people without articles, double-link years, etc.?  I've been spot-checking recently and noting that a lot have mysteriously vanished.  Fabricationary 06:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That text seems fine to me, saves me composing my own :) As for the tags at the bottom of the sections, I'll keep that in mind. Pseudomonas 07:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No subheadings (See also: avoid subcategories) -- Robocoder ( talk | contribs ) 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

20th Century subheadings
It appears someone is creating a 20th century subheading in some of the date articles. While I generally object to unilateral format changes to this project, I also object to mass reversions due only to a point of order. So, let's begin the discussion: should the article headings "event", "birth", and "death" have century subheaders? Rklawton 04:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mild No - the main headings aren't overly long, and it's not particularly hard to find an event or person. Rklawton 04:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong no - quite redundant. Fabricationary 06:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Pointless and somewhat arbitrary. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dealing with Julian calendar dates
I've got an authoritative source which dates publication of Isaac Newton's Principia as 5 July, 1687 in the Julian calendar. This project page seems to imply i should convert that to 15 July in the Gregorian calendar, move the event from the 5 July page to the 15 July page, and link to 15 July in the various articles which mention publication of Principia. The MOS, however, seems to suggest that i should not convert the date but leave as 5 July and link as such. Are all the events listed on day of the year pages meant to be listed as when they occured under the Gregorian calendar or are they a mix of Gregorian and Julian calendar dates?EricR 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Project membership
At the request of Badbilltucker, I created a membership list on the project page. I've compiled the following list of contributors to this Talk page, and if I have time, I'll leave y'all a message. In the meantime, you can either add yourself, or strike out your name. -- Robocoder ( talk | contribs ) 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Angela
 * Arcturus
 * Ardric47
 * Astrotrain
 * Benjaminevans82
 * Bryson109
 * Borameer
 * Calton
 * Chuq
 * DabMachine
 * Daniel Quinlan
 * Decumanus
 * Dlyons493
 * Docu
 * EricR
 * Fabiform
 * Fabricationary
 * FredR
 * Gadfium
 * GaidinBDJ
 * Gev
 * Graham87
 * Hajor
 * Ianblair23
 * Ixfd64
 * Jeandré
 * Jengod
 * Jiang
 * Jim Douglas
 * Jim McKeeth
 * Kangaru99
 * Kingturtle
 * Lord Tau
 * Maveric149
 * Melchoir
 * Menchi
 * Mereda
 * Michfan2123 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Minesweeper
 * MisfitToys
 * Moink
 * MykReeve
 * Niteowlneils
 * Notary137
 * Oliver Pereira
 * Palfrey
 * PedanticallySpeaking
 * PFHLai
 * Phil Boswell
 * PhilHibbs
 * Philip Baird Shearer
 * Plugwash
 * Pseudomonas
 * Qasid
 * Reddi
 * Rich Farmbrough
 * RickK
 * Rklawton
 * ScottyBoy900Q
 * SFC9394
 * Shanes
 * Spondoolicks
 * Spudtater
 * Stan Shebs
 * Tobias Hoevekamp
 * Tuvas
 * Vicki Rosenzweig
 * Weatherman90
 * Wernher
 * Xyzzyplugh
 * Ydorb
 * Zoe

Why is this here and not on the project page or in a subpage? Brian Jason Drake 12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for breakdown of days
It seems to me that there are fundamentally two potential users for these date pages. The wikipedia portal managers, who will use them for selecting data to be included in the portals, and someone who is just interested in the day in general. Given that the portal managers will have an interest in these matters, I propose that we potentially either break down the pages to include all those who have relevant anniversaries on that date and somehow mark those who are counted as being more important, or separate out those which are counted as being more important. I would think maybe one of the criteria for differentiation would be how important any of the existing wikipedia projects consider the given subject. If, for instance, any portals or projects covering the same subject matter as portals counts the subject as being of either "top" or "high" importance, then I believe that they can reasonably be included on the date listing either on the top or with an asterisk, bolded name, or whatever. This will make it substantially easier for portal managers to update their portals. Perhaps, in some circumstances, we might even "mark" those of the highest level of importance for the given period (week, perhaps) between each update of a given portal. Anyway, I'd more than welcome any responses. Badbilltucker2 19:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Badbill. The idea doesn't sound bad, but I tend to think that putting that idea into practice would introduce subjectivity to the pages more than historical objectivity.  You're probably aware of the "Selected Anniversaries" derived from events on each date which is what appears on the main page on a given date (and also on each date's talk page).  I think the editors who have worked on that have done a good job in selecting events of global pertinence from a variety of fields (i.e. world news, major happenings in a country, even sports/entertainment here and there).   Here the "most important" events are bolded for emphasis, but on the page itself, these events are not bolded.  A system that involved bolding events on date pages or sectioning them out by "Related to (such country/project)" or "Most Important" or "Entertainment/Art/Politics/etc." would 1) require a lot of work, 2) be subjective, and 3) make the pages longer and bulkier.   Let's see what others have to say.  Fabricationary 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All points well taken and which I can agree with. However, I do note the rather huge number of portals out there, beyond simply the main one.  Would anyone else object to putting in a greater number of events related to a particular date so that more portals would be able to find things relevant to their specific subject on the date pages?  Badbilltucker 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish dates
I'd like to bring your attention to Wikipedia talk:Jewish dates. Please add your thoughts to that page. Thanks!&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikify Days of the year
Most the the wikipedia articles on days of the year have an extremly long list of events which in my few should broken down with section headings. For example 1900-1949, 1950-1999. The only problem with this is that all the pages would need to be consistent, which would mean updating 366 days. I would be interested in your feedback. --Benjaminevans82 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See . -- Jeandré, 2006-09-27t17:55z

Fictional events
I was wondering about the "No Fiction" policy here. I totally agree that if a fictional event/birth/death/holiday appears in those lists it should be deleted, no question, as it could be very confusing. However, I don't really understand where the harm is in allowing a separate section for such events from sufficiently noteworthy works of fiction. The article for November 12th (picked at random, I'm sure there are many others), for example, has a Fiction section that I think is noteworthy. Could we discuss the possible relaxation of the habitual deletion of fiction from the date pages? Adxm 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes a fictional event -- er...non-event -- notable? Contrast with September 11 or 42 (number). Maybe we have should nail down the notability criteria for real events first?  -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 05:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but why not nail them down at the same time?
 * I would agree with what has been mentioned here before, that most people look at these pages for events, real or otherwise, on their birthday, or wedding anniversary or similar for friends/family. Some may use it for serious research, I don't know, but I would like to know about events on my birthday, and I'm sure others would too.
 * *I suspect that the current "immediately delete" policy does not fit in with people's wishes.*
 * How about if an event, fictional or otherwise, is mentioned in a *directly relevant* main WP page, which by its very remained existence must be notable, then we allow the event to stand and not otherwise. This would stop really obscure references to pieces of fiction as well as facts: if there is no mention of the event in a main article then it can't be notable. -- Adxm 09:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see very narrow guidelines for fiction. If any fictional event mentioned in an existing Wikipedia article is valid, then this entry, which I reverted from October 19 yesterday, would be allowed:
 * 2007 - President George W. Bush is assassinated in Chicago as depicted by the film Death Of A President
 * -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of fiction, etc. But I think the date articles are long enough already - and they are getting a lot longer. For example, I suspect most biographies don't have birth/death dates represented in date articles. In the long run, I think these articles will split into Date Event, Date Birth, Date Death, and Date Observances articles due to length. Adding Date Fiction to existing date articles will just break their backs sooner. Instead, I suggesting creating the Date Fiction series of articles right away. Events, births, deaths, and observances will eventually follow along. The date articles we have now could then consist of the main section with information about the date and a "See also" section with links to related articles (events, births, etc). This will keep individual date articles from getting too long as well as meet the needs of fiction fans. Hmm, this may also accomodate the horoscope fans, too. Rklawton 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Rklawton's idea, and point to List of important dates in fiction as a starting point, possibly to become obsolete, considering the oft escapist nature of the internet.69.137.129.2 00:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am seeing more and more days of the year with a "fictional events" subheading. Is this officially discouraged? Should I remove these? (example: March 25  Joyous! | Talk 15:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Other holidays
I know a reliable website, http://www.brownielocks.com/month2.html, and there may be more, that includes the lesser-known holidays such as World Egg Day (October 13), National Gum Drop Day (February 15), and Interntional Mountain Day (December 11). Although they may seem non-notable, people looking for information about their birthday would find it useful and interesting. Due to many international users, we might want to dramatically cut down the holidays actually used. What do you think? Reywas92 Talk 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Images, revisited
A while ago I noticed that someone was deleting the images from all of the date pages. After it went on for a while, I decided to revert it, mainly because the apparently indiscriminate nature of the deletions concerned me. Do we have any guidelines for what images (if any) are appropriate on those pages? My gut feeling would be that, while we don't need an image on every page, there are some iconic dates for which an image is definitely called for, including September 11 and November 22. Any thoughts? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 150px images go pretty well with list-type articles. I'm thinking specifically of List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois.  The image should be very specific to the event in question and not something generic.  For example, the first man on the moon event should show an image of Armstrong's first steps and not the NASA logo.  The user in question claimed that showing images of some events and not others demonstrated favoritism.  However, I disagree with that notion as a basis for banning all images entirely.  Images make Wikipedia's articles far more useful and interesting.  Rklawton 05:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi it's me. How can you disagree that it's favoritism while in the same sentence you indicate that some should have images and some shouldn't? That is direct application of the definition of favoritism. I see the date pages as a jump off point for all events that happened to occur on the same date, as their topics are much too numerous to fairly focus on any one event. I agree that images are useful and interesting, but choosing an image already widely associated with a certain date offers no new information to readers. Since the most reasonable image candidates are for the most popular events, I find them redundant on the date pages, as their events' very popularity heightens the possibility of images on their respective popular pages. I look forward to talking more about this.69.137.129.2 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that some events listed on a date article shouldn't have images. Next, we make choices in date articles all the time.  For example, not all events that occur on a particular date are notable enough for mention in a date article.  Choices are a fact of life, and the fact that we must choose does not mean we must choose nothing at all.  A few event images make date articles look nicer, and that's sufficient.  Rklawton 00:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Nicer" is a matter of taste, and by thinking that no images make the date articles look nicer, that is sufficient by your argument. Also, I assume we agree that "not all events should have an image", which is an equivalent statement to "some event(s) should not have an image". However, you make a good point about choosing which events make it on the list. But once they're on, the list is egalitarian. Readers have mentioned that they mostly use the date pages to look up other events that happened on their birthday, or some other kind of anniversary. Probably the second most likely reason is for research. In both cases, they are probably aware of the most famous events on that day, and are rather looking for events they are unaware of.69.137.129.2 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So it's OK that we are egalitarian in our selection of events, but after that we can't be egalitarian? The "all events must have images – or we're biased" argument just doesn't fly.  At any rate, what I had in mind when I wrote about some events would not have images was simply that some events have no images available.  Nothing else you've written serves to indicate that date articles should have no images whatsoever.  The articles will look nicer, regardless of a reader's motivation for visiting the page.  And I see no valid reason for banning images in these articles.  You've been editing here for perhaps a week.  I suggest you hang around a bit and see how things are done.  Rklawton 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to look up egalitarian, as your definition is backwards. Also, I'm not saying all events should have images, in fact quite the opposite. I've already addressed your point about articles looking "nicer", and I think I refuted it quite well. This discussion is in a stale mate until you recognize (understand?) my point and address it. And while I honestly appreciate your willingness to help what you consider new users (really, that's good stuff!), I have been using and editing wikipedia since 2003, I just have a new IP now.69.137.129.2 18:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The current count appears to be 2 in favor of event images and 1 opposed. Rklawton 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of event images.. as noted below, the German wikipedia has images for their days, and they seem to compliment the lists articles nicely. 131.111.24.187 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Criteria for listing in Births and Deaths
I think there should be some more discussion on the criteria for listing in Births and Deaths, as the two years old discussion above (here) didn't lead anywhere. As such new users are unaware what to include or they are making their own rules as there are currently no recommendations or guidelines for this. So I suggest developing some basic criteria/rules/recommendations and adding them to the wikiproject page. The text by Kingturtle got some support then and could be used as a starting point.

Quote from the old discussion (Kingturtle 15 Feb 2005):

In regards to births and deaths, I feel that we should be discriminating in our choices - that the idea is to list the more/most significant names on a day-article, not all possible names, and not even moderately significant names. Recent deaths can be used for a more extensive list, and the more historically important names should be placed on the day-articles. IMHO, an article about a particular day is not meant to be a complete compendium or complete list. It is a summary of the most and more important events of that day.

Best, feydey 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - The current approach - that the person must have a Wikipedia article of their own - is simple to understand, easy to follow, and causes very little editorial disagreement.  If we go with any other standard, we're going to invite edit wars as editors differ in their opinions.  The current approach seems to cause virtually no problems or disagreements, and the articles aren't too long.  If they should become too long, then we could split them into constituent pieces without too much headache.  Let's not make a lot of extra work for ourselves here.  Biographies must already pass a notability test just for inclusion within Wikipedia.  Rklawton 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit it, I get annoyed when someone adds a bunch of no-name wrestlers or porn stars to the date pages. But, as long as the size of those pages remains manageable, there's a lot to be said for sticking with the black-and-white rule:  If the person being added links to a legitimate Wikipedia article, then he/she is more or less entitled to a place on the date pages.  Just the fact that the article exists ensures at least a minimal level of notability, and if we start to say "yes, that person has an article, but I don't believe he's really notable", we're inviting edit wars.  But events are a different problem, and we do exercise some judgment there.  For the most part, we don't allow movie releases, CD releases, book publications, software releases, or consumer electronics releases.  That policy (applied with good faith common sense judgment) has worked so far.  I can see it breaking down if someone decides to absolutely insist on adding the PlayStation or Nintendo release, and demanding to know where in the rules it says he can't. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jim. On the bright side, I've been able to successfully nominate quite a few bios for SD and AfD because someone thought to post a link to their bio in a date article - an act which brought the bio to my attention.  Rklawton 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rklawton and Jim Douglas. Such a criteria would be difficult to compose and enforce.  Fabricationary 00:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agreeing with Rklawton and Jim Douglas. My particular annoyances among the births (in addition to the wrestlers) are US child television stars (I didn't know there were so many) and so-called supermodels, but the general point stands. --CalendarWatcher 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that the discussion can be condensed to a basic criteria (below), and added to the project page under That one sentence would guide others to some degree in the BaD section. Is there something to add/change here? feydey 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Listing criteria:
 * Births and Deaths
 * If the person being added links to a legitimate Wikipedia article, then he/she is entitled to a place on the date pages.


 * That's a good idea. Such a note already exists as an in-line note within the date articles following both the births and the deaths sections.  Rklawton 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that would be the word "legitimate." Do you think, instead of legitimate, "at least two other distinct Wikipedia articles" would work? Fabricationary 17:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two? Assuming one article is the individual's biography, what would be in the other article?  I suggest this wording:  Individuals listed under births/deaths must have their own biographical article in Wikipedia.  Rklawton 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say legimate has the meaning that the article is not a prod or CSD. feydey 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the criteria that we currently have - "do not add anyone without a Wikipedia article to the Wikicalender pages." If we wanted to add additional criteria to prevent the listing of some people with biographical articles that some editors deem insignificant, such as little-known actors/wrestlers, etc., we could establish the criteria that they not only have their own biographical article but that their biographical article is linked to by a second independent article (other than that Wikicalendar page, a user's page or talk page, or an image page).  For example, if Joe Schmoe is a professional baseball player, he will not only have his own biographical article, but that biographical article will be linked to by perhaps a page containing the current roster of the team.  Along the same lines, little-known actress Janey Blainey, who is said to have "appeared in a lot of TV commercials," will have a biographical article that is not linked to by any other Wikipedia article and can be removed from the date page.  This might weed out a few more articles than those that would normally be nominated for deletion via XFDs.  Fabricationary 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe the second article should also exclude lists. Take for example, Anthony Ocaña (listed on March 7, whose  biographical article only links to a date, a year, and two lists.  ). Fabricationary 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm jumping into this late, but Fabricationary's comment exemplifies whatlinkshere. Why can't the number of inbound links to an article be used as an additional requirement (beyond simply notable enough to have a Wikipedia article)?   -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the proper count then? I'd say it adds a needless complication - especially as the number of inbound links can change up or down from day to day.  Rklawton 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)