Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To make sure articles are not selected (bolded item) more than once, search for the article's name at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/All.

Articles for improvement[edit]


Why do so many of the On This Day entries concern war? Almost every day there is at least one entry relating to a war. Is it because a large proportion of submitted entries relate to war, or is it because the people who choose entries for the day are obsessed with war? B. Fairbairn (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entries are mostly chosen based on article quality; through no deliberate action of any one person, we have many high quality articles about those topics. WP:MILHIST is a very active Wikiproject with lots of members who improve many articles about military history. Your presumption that people are doing so maliciously is a very odd one to make. I'm not sure why your first assumption is ill-intent. --Jayron32 13:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Workshopping a proposal for a new user group[edit]

Valereee and I have been working on a proposal to form a new usergroup whose members would be able to edit content on the main page or its fully protected subsidiaries. Since it directly affects this project, and is based in part on the shortage of administrators working here, we would like to invite feedback on the proposal at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. The proposal itself is at User:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. In particular, we would like to hear it if you are opposed to the whole thing on principle, because in that case we would rather spend our time promoting queues than in organizing a large-scale RfC. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal of interest[edit]

Watchers of this talk page may be interested in this proposal about creating a new usergroup for main page edits. This is the same proposal on which opinions were solicited here some months ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just started helping with OTD myself this week. I'd be very interested in learning more about your proposal! In my work we've been extremely focused on how to bring new human resources to existing and understaffed wikiprojects. Ref Most of my wiki dialogs are now happening on Telegram - you can find me there as @drmelganus. Hope to hear from you soon! DrMel (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving date events[edit]

Hi! Just a heads up, the "Victoria Day (2020)" is very confusing. I get that the day moves each year, but the average reader will assume that this is a new holiday. I see that's the case for other holidays, too. Does there need to be a year, at all? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zanimum: Sorry for the late reply. The "(2020)" is so so I can easily figure out which ones need to be moved on a yearly basis. Otherwise I'll never figure it out. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted blurbs[edit]

Toddst1, can you explain these dramatic edits: 1 and 2? I understand you were cleaning up the November 6 article. Taking Charter of the Forest as an example, would it not have been more prudent to use the source cited in the article or find a source such as this which a simple search on Google Books yielded?

What other dates have you done this with? You seem to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Courtesy ping Howcheng. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Toddst1: Whether or not you are cleaning up the DOY articles, please do not remove perfectly good blurbs from the OTD pages. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an addendum, I've made an executive decision to remove the requirement for the OTD event to be included in the corresponding DOY page. howcheng {chat} 07:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Howcheng: You're not an executive here. You don't get to exempt anyone from WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toddst1: Sorry, I am genuinely confused. How is WP:V being exempted here? All I am doing is removing requirement that OTD blurbs have to be listed on the respective DOY pages. Of course WP:V still applies. howcheng {chat} 22:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and furthermore, that's not how you clean up an OTD page anyway. If you believe a blurb is ineligible, you move it to the "Ineligible" section (noting why you've done it in the reason field) and you replace it with an eligible one. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toddst1 I think you're taking a rather strange approach to all this. Better to chill and discuss here before continuing down a dark path. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of List of historical anniversaries for deletion[edit]

This group might be interested that a discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of historical anniversaries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gregorian calendar[edit]

Hello. There was a discussion on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors about whether the Great Storm of 1703 should appear on its Old Stle or New Style date. My opinion is that it we should use the date in use at the time, which in this case would be the Old Style, as per MOS:OSNS for article content ("Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar"). However Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries states "the event should have occurred on the day in question (according to the Gregorian calendar)" so we should convert to the modern calendar. I can see this being complicated and possibly introducing error. Keen to hear any thoughts on this - Dumelow (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To resurrect this discussion after recent discussions at WP:ERRORs I propose the existing text at WP:OTDRULES (in red below) is replaced with the text in green. This will link the dating of Selected Anniversaries to the MOS - Dumelow (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Furthermore, the event should have occurred on the day in question (according to the Gregorian calendar) in local time, or UTC if local time is not applicable (e.g., not on Earth).
  • Furthermore, the event should have occurred on the day in question in the calendar in use at the time (per MOS:JG). The date of the event should be determined by the local time, or UTC if local time is not applicable (e.g., not on Earth).
Gets my support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, support. There seems little reason to be deviating from the MOS in this matter. The only exception I can think of is if there's a date which is for some reason routinely observed in Gregorian calendar, but which was actually Julian at the time it occurred. But I haven't heard of any such cases, and indeed the opposite is probably mostly true (Guy Fawkes on 5 November, Julius Caesar's death on 15 March etc.)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support. Much simpler when supporting a date with contemporary references, obviating the need to check and reference the conversion. Jmchutchinson (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support green text. Blindly following the existing rules makes no sense. --PFHLai (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just realised this change was never implemented. I've now changed the guidance to reflect the wording proposed above, which received unanimous support - Dumelow (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caps bug on Feb 21[edit]

In "The Siege of Inverness ended with British forces surrendering to the Jacobite army", "siege" should be lowercase, as it always is in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dicklyon Please report these kinds of issues at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dicklyon oops, ping fail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe next time I'll know that. Too late this time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dicklyon well no, I added a comment to ERRORS yesterday morning and it was resolved in a matter of minutes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting inputs & help[edit]


Lot many events like Women's protest March do take place on International Women's Day, amongst them, since 2018 Pakistan women take out Aurat March and is leading to substantial social discourse in Pakistan, with substantial media coverage.

Earlier I requested help to see if Aurat March and/or International Women's Day can be nominated Wikipedia main page 'Ongoing' sub section of Wikipedia:In the news section ?

The Rambling Man suggested me to seek inputs whether it would be better idea to include Aurat March and/or International Women's Day at WP:Selected anniversaries than WP:ITNC.

Please do guide.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1991 Soviet referendum (copied from Template talk:On this day, because I originally posted it on the wrong page)[edit]

It is extremely misleading to say that 70% of voters voted to "preserve the Soviet Union." The referendum was not on whether to preserve the status quo, the text of the question explicitly called for a new structure of government. Carrot official (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 September[edit]

I am pleased to see Messiah (Handel) on today's Main page. I suggest Vespro della Beata Vergine to be considered for 1 September, the day the composer dedicated it to the Pope. We don't know if it was ever performed during his lifetime, nor if he would have wanted that. Still, it became an iconic work in music history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I doing it right?[edit]

I've never interacted with a main page content section where the procedure was just to add your own thing without an approval process. So I am requesting that someone look at my addition to the June 8 queue. I've added Keith Gill (an article which I created and got on DYK), who was born on that day. I don't know what criteria are used in determining who gets to be in the list, so I will leave it to the editors here to decide. Cheers! jp×g 21:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey JPxG, as long as the article is up to scratch and that aren't maintenance tags or more than a couple of [citation needed] tags, it's fine. It's also a good idea to just check that we have a reasonably diverse demographic spread in terms of age, sex, nationality etc, not just on the day itself but a few days before and after so the project doesn't get accused of bias. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down[edit]

Conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down. Shubinator (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wording of Selected anniversaries?[edit]

Moved from Talk:Main Page

For "Selected anniversaries", I've noticed that even if there's an event name, sometimes it's not actually in the description. It's always bothered me. To give a couple examples:

(posted June 21)
(posted June 17)

For me, it'd be nice to know the name of the event (I know this is a rough example, but hopefully this shows my point)

Thoughts? Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator note @Fredlesaltique: I moved this from talk:Main Page as it would likely get quickly archived there, here it will have time to further develop (I left a link there to here). — xaosflux Talk 11:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux: Thanks. Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The selected anniversaries are easily editable when they are not currently on the main page, each day as a page - for example Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 17. We have an unofficial coordinator for these, User:Howcheng (by virtue of being an admin that works in this area a lot), who can probably give you more insight in to this. — xaosflux Talk 11:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I would tend to agree with Fredlesaltique here. If there's a common name for an event, and our title reflects that, it would seem a good idea to include that name in the blurb. I would in general prefer it to be in running text rather than the Wairau Affray: In the New Zealand Wars... though.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I agree with the OP. My immediate thought was 'which battle was that?' On desktop view the tooltip shows that it's Lake Trasimene, but on mobile view users have to click on the bold link to open the article and see. There might be other ways of rephrasing the blurbs to avoid piping the name, rather than putting it at the front with a colon, but those forms are preferable to what we have at the moment. Modest Genius talk 13:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree too, and I remember when it appeared the example of Battle of Lake Trasimene striking me as just a touch condescending, since it was a name I learned at school. Personally I quite like the title-colon-explanation format that Amakuru dislikes, as long as it's not that format for every hook. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You can't use the format for events without a name or with a redundant one (2021 Disaster in Country X). And for sure you could vary the phrasing after the colon. Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OTD is one of the lightest weight processes to get existing articles on to the MP; Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries might look a little complicated to newer editors, but compared to DYK and ITN this section is usually one of the least contentious. We welcome bolder contributions here, though admins will enforce the quality standards (we won't list articles with defect tags on them). Feel free to look forward on to the list and make improvements, if you aren't exactly sure of something - drop a note on that day's talk page - the patrolling admins will usually check there as the date comes up. — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm a little on the fence on this, as I appreciate the efforts involved in making the OTD blurbs more interesting and less perfunctory, but I'm not going to die on any particular hill here. Do we have any feedback from readers or is this just an editorial preference? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I for one like to have a bit of variation in the way we do these blurbs, otherwise every battle one starts to sound the same for example, so I don't want a blanket rule. If you think certain items should be directly mentioned by name, then go for it. howcheng {chat} 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, that. I don't think we've ever had a single complaint from the millions of main page readers. This is possibly a case of fixing something that really isn't broken and maybe a candidate for a trial run: analyse pageviews before and after such a change over a couple of a weeks, just to get a vague idea if that makes any difference to people visiting the main page. Otherwise it's just rearranging deckchairs for the sake of it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean I'm a reader offering feedback lol. To be fair, the bar for giving feedback is pretty high on Wikipedia. Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Fredlesaltique: Well here's the perfect opportunity for you to transition from reader to editor! :DDDD howcheng {chat} 17:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21 august; dehumanising & incorrect terms on main page[edit]

Hey, currently theres two entries about the destruction of Fort Selkirk by Tlingit people, and Nat Turner and enslaved peoples’ rebellion, however in both of these descriptions there is either incorrect (referring to the Tlingit people as “indians”, despite them being native american) or dehumanising (referring to black people as just “blacks” for example) terms being used, could an admin change this? thanks a bunch! Asdiapod (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image placement[edit]

I've noticed a few times that it often feels a bit odd to have e.g. an Apache helicopter image right next to a blurb about 16th-century Japanese history, given that the practice everywhere else on Wikipedia is to place images as close as reasonably possible to the text they refer to. I wonder if it would be better to place OTD images next to the relevant blurb rather than always at upper right. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean like this? The main objection I can think of, other than the template design not matching the other three top sections of the main page, is that the image could end up hanging off the bottom. Particuarly if it was a long thing pic and the relevant entry was at the bottom.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's an example where it definitely would look odd: User:Amakuru/Main_page_2.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frequently asked question Related discussion Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the mockups, Amakuru; that's what I had in mind. And thanks for the links, Art LaPella, although I note that they are both pre-2010, so we're probably due for a re-examination.
Regarding the issue with tall vertical images in the last slot, that looks okayish albeit not ideal since there's some buffer room from the births/deaths and yesterday/tomorrow lines. I think it's important to remember that that situation isn't likely to come up super frequently, and that when it does we can generally choose a different image/blurb. The FAQ indicates that the French Wikipedia does it sometimes, so it seems possible. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like Amakuru's first example (the Apache helicopter), but the tall image associated with the last item does look a bit ungainly overhanging the end. I don't think the ideal resolution is to avoid images for the bottom (and probably penultimate) blurbs, especially since recent events are often the easiest to find illustratons for. As a possible alternative, can someone say how difficult it would be to get the bottom of the image vertical-aligned with the bottom of the associated text? Obviously the code would have to ensure that this alignment worked consistently at different magnifications and on different platforms. Jmchutchinson (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been discussed to death over many years. There was even a mock up at some point that placed all the Main Page images next to their relevant items and was seriously discussed, but it looked ugly and broke numerous aspects of the layout so was discarded. Any change would need to be coordinated with all other sections of the MP and thoroughly tested with different browsers, skins, mobile view etc. I don't think it's worth the effort when we already have a caption and (pictured) to indicate which item is being illustrated. The Main Page is not an article so we don't need to follow the same conventions as article pages. Modest Genius talk 12:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is proposal to include birth of Swedish singer, record producer and DJ Basshunter on December 22. Eurohunter (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 30 – Adolf[edit]

Suggest listing Hitler's suicide in the Berlin Bunker on April 30, 1945 – which prefigured the end of the Nazi tyranny and the conclusion of WWII in Europe (on May 7 or 8, depending on pt. of view). – Sca (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed[edit]

@Bumbubookworm, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Ravenpuff: I'm going to be out of town the next few days and probably will not have time to do much editing. I've done up to June 19, so can one (or more of you) cover me for the 20th to 22nd? Thanks in advance. howcheng {chat} 08:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done up to the 22nd Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 16[edit]

June 16 2023 will be the 65th anniversary of the execution of some of the leaders of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising: notable enough for English WP mention OTD/elsewhere on the Main Page? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auckland Sky Tower[edit]

The Auckland Sky Tower is having its 25th birthday tomorrow (3 Aug). I see it's not scheduled because of an under-referenced section. I'm going to fix that and once done, I'll add it to the set. Any objections, please reply here and ping me. Schwede66 23:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, that's done. Article is tidy now. I've also added a photo and before I could manually protect it, Krinklebot had done its thing. As I say, if there are complaints or niggles, please give me a ping. Schwede66 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's always good when a significant anniversary prompts maintenance work so that something nice can be displayed Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 Benghazi attack[edit]

In coming weeks, the 2012 Benghazi attack will be the 10th Anniversary of the Libyan attacks for September 11-12, 2012. Adamdaley (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is in the queue. however, there is one unreferenced paragraph in the media response section Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why isn't the September 11 attacks listed? cookie monster 755 17:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 14[edit]

Regarding the prep area for the date: I propose to replace the current image being featured for this one, featuring Elvis Presley. Kripalu Maharaj seems to be a character relevant enough to be featured, but I'm requesting the change since January 14, 2023 is going to mark the 50th anniversary of Presley's concert broadcasted via satellite. If it was 2027 (the 70th anniversary of Maharaj being promoted to jagadguru), I would see the case for leaving it. But being that it marks the anniversary of a relevant event for television (live concert broadcasts were far from the norm in back 73'), and that it mentions a pretty well known figure to English speakers, the change would be justified. --GDuwenHoller! 18:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mother's Day in Iran[edit]

Mother's Day in Iran (Fatima) was removed from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 24 because it's from 2022 and not the same date in 2023, and it has already passed for this year. I assume it should get moved to the 2024 date's page. However,this calendar says that 20 Jumada al-Thani is on 2 Jan 2024, but the WP page says 3 Jan 2024. So either 1) I'm reading the calendar wrong 2) I'm using an incorrect calendar 3) it's actually observed on 21 Jumada al-Thani 4) the WP page is wrong.

Maybe someone can figure it out and park it on the right page for 2024.—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Barring unique circumstances to a person's death, shouldn't we be listing a bio by their birthday, and not their death? —Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends. Maybe it's useful to be a bit sensitive around people who died in recent years (not sure how to define "recent"). For historic figures, I see absolutely no issue with reporting either birth or death dates. Schwede66 00:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't concerned about BLP issues, just from a reader interest perspective. Maybe it's just me seeing random uneventful death dates as trivial and uninteresting (birthdates are trivial too, but they seem oft-mentioned in other circles) —Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]