Knowledge talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 5

659:(out of a hundred-and-then-my-head-spun entries) would qualify for listing if we only took articles of top or high importance. The vast majority of articles had not been given ratings, and many (maybe even the majority) did not even have the template for future ratings (or talk pages did not exist). It's going to take a lot of work by editors who assign those ratings to get to a point where we can use those ratings as a discerning factor in deciding who is "notable enough" to include. 1187:(Nickelodeon types, as mentioned above). They have articles (debates about the wikipedia wide notability criterion can be left to another place) and so our current guideline set makes it ok for them to have a DOTY entry - despite the fact that I think it is a useless entry which devalues the DOTY page rather than enhances it. Is it time we (those of us who patrol DOTY pages on a daily basis) started to raise the bar a bit for entries above and beyond "has an article"? 697:

have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at

31: 612:. Otherwise, given that we have at least about 300,000 biography articles, we could expect every page to have at least one or two thousand entries, which, while they would certainly be encyclopedic in terms of inclusiveness, would be monsters to develop and maintain. Maybe taking a similar approach to the various important dates would work as well. 1823: 833:. It seems pretty clear to me that this will be notable on a global scale and for years to come (at least 'til the fuss about the 7th movie dies down, and it is almost certain that there will be a 7th movie). Maybe the exact date of the release won't be important in a few years, but it will be this year. 2055:

video. I will gladly stop posting, as I am connected to iVillage.com, but would love to see it on wiki. The information from the video is taken from various, double-checked sources before put into the piece. I think it's a great source of info, as well as something that is unique from other other

1628:

page, where I saw it added. I have tried it over the last five days and it apparently works, updating as the new day arrives while showing last year for tomorrow till the end of the year. The fact that February 29 does not work is a minor problem compared to the effort of updating every day manually.

1440:

has Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, External Links. And that's only the first three days of the year. I'm in favor of limiting the headings to Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, External Links. This would also conform more closely to the template. Anyone opposed?

2095:

was getting rather lengthy, I added subheaders to the events, births, and deaths sections, so that it is easier to read the page or to search it for particular events. I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of these subheaders, and on the possibility of extending this format to other pages.

2006:

Common sense generally dictates how the 3RR rule is applied in this case. I strongly believe that no admin would block for reverting vandalism on calendar articles unless it is a pure edit war. I find that I'm usually reverting several different edits, not just the same thing over and over. I hope

1244:

page as a help to editors for deciding which events are notable and which aren't. But said page opens with the following message: "This Knowledge page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest." My question: is the guideline page still "in force" or not? If not, where's

1906:

Very rarely do we know of any significant world event before they happen. Sometimes it takes years to recognize an event's true impact. The start of the Olympics, past, present, or future, is not significant enough to be included as an event (with the exception of the first Olympics and perhaps the

1255:

I don’t have the answer but am interested in it. I had been thinking of starting a discussion here on the subject of notability, as it refers to the Days of the Year pages and contacting the users who seem to be interested in the Days of the Year pages to ask them to contribute their thoughts. And

169:

I did not reject your comment. I said I would be happy to keep the film info in separate articles. You didn't even respond to that suggestion. Since it has been threaten that those articles were deleted AND I was advised to put their contents into the Day of the year articles, that's what I've been

950:

I agree with what you wrote about a symbolic end of childhood for millions. That, however, is nostalgia and not "cultural impact." We aren't going to look at the world differently because of the HP7 movie release. Consider Star Wars episodes I-VI. Only Star Wars IV (the first one released) had

1540:

Personaly I suggest that you do not add more linkings to the NZ day in history pages, but that is my opinion, I suspect not many people had noticed the ones you did and have not therefore formed an opinion. With regard to your comment about Canada, although most days it does include international

696:

proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who

1500:

As the one who added the links, I'm happy for them to be removed if you don't think they are appropriate - I didn't think they were any more parochial than Canada's ones though. It is a government website and the content is provided by professional historians so there should be no concerns about

1518:

Just wondering where we have got to with this? Can I carry on adding External links to the date pages, or should I remove the ones I've done so far (7)? I am also very happy to add actual events, births and deaths where these seem to have a more international interest if that seems appropriate.

1932:

I'm a new editor, so this may be an already oft-answered question. (And I may be in the wrong place to ask it. If so, apologies.) My question is this: what is the prefered way for an ordinary editor to deal with a probable non-notable entry? I'm not asking about notability criteria (I've read

2069:

Viewers who visit the site are required to watch advertisements before they can watch the video. That should disqualify it from inclusion. I'm also of the opinion that the three external links should be reduced to one because there is much duplication of information on all of the links. --

642:

The way it seems now, based on my observations, is that there's not that many editors actively adding valid (i.e. not redlinked/no-linked) entries to the Wikicalendar, so those 300,000 or so biographical articles will never all end up on the project. Your idea of only allowing those of high

1186:

for people born from ~ the 30's onwards. At the moment we look to be, on most days, averaging ~ 50 or so living. Obviously the fact that we only have 50ish means things are ok, but I thought I should post this comment as I am noticing quite a few entries appearing which are basically junk

1743:

I figured it would be more appropriate to have this in the Template namespace. :) If there's consensus that the template should be used (I'll look into the February 29th/leap year issue when I get a few minutes which, frankly, may not be for a few days), I'd be happy to have my bot help.

1465:

links to the date pages. I don't think they are necessary/appropriate so I wanted to discuss it here before removing them. I think what's there is enough and a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I also noted that the editor appears to be somehow affiliated with the site. Thoughts? --

580:

is more interesting than any hundred wrestlers...but I can see this getting out of hand if someone goes on a mission to add all of those (hundreds?) of animals to the date pages. Like most things around here, this would all be fine if we could just count on common sense to prevail. --

504:

is appropriate? I apologize for its bulky title - if we still think it's viable, we could move the page to a more appropriate title (maybe something like "WikiCalendar Event Criteria?") and link it to the project page so it's readily visible and can be referred to when need be.

784:

If I for example read about some one who is born on January 1, 2005, and I want to know what other things happened that day, I will have to click many times before I can read about it. I think creating one article per day would be a good way of making Knowledge even better.

529:. If an animal is notable enough to warrant a Knowledge article, then it should be fair to note its birth/death on these pages. This shouldn't be a serious problem in practice; very few animals reach this level of notability. I agree with all of the other guidelines. -- 211:, where some people seem to like the idea, and the main objection is that there's no point in working on it because of the idiot deletioninsts who like to delete any list having to do with film. Nobody has called it pointless or objected on any other ground. Funny, that. — 2204:

Circumventing user-definable preferences for the purpose of favoring one style of date display. It's unnecessary and unproductive. Perhaps "vandalism" has connotations too strong for this activity, but it's something for which we ought to be looking out and correcting.

1901:

With respect to Future Events, if we know things are going to happen (i.e. the start of the Olympics) why can't they be listed? I only ask because my entry for the date of the Opening Ceremony of the 2010 Winter Games was removed. --Lord Tau 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1545:

to consider, if you feel that the Canada listing is not worth having then you could start a discussion here. In addition I suspect that the addition of another "this day in history" link would lead to the addition of more and more, see above at the IMDB discussion.

1170:

Just based on recent observations of some DOTY entries that have been added (things such as kids who have articles because they are in some Nickelodeon "pop" group that will last for 6 months) is it about time that we set the bar for having names included

1765:

I’m not sure that fixing February 29 is worth the code, trying to double guess what the NYT will do would require more effort than remembering to do it manually. But for the other 365 days it seems worth having a bot insert the template

672:

I'm going to go ahead and add the list of items above to the project page, minus the animals one until we can establish a consensus. Anyone else have thoughts on this? (Where's Rklawton, and doesn't CalendarWatcher monitor this page?)

1256:

have only not done so while I try and put my own thoughts in order before sharper minds than mine run circles around them (but basically I think there are a lot of entries of minor global notability especially in the births section). --

701:

where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.

170:

doing. Frankly, I'd prefer separate articles WHICH HURT NO ONE. I asked you to quantify the harm done to Knowledge by having those separate articles in scientific terms, but you ignored that. Well? What precisely is the harm? —

929:

Alot. However, few will have ANY cultural impact. HP7 on the other hand, will be significant event for millions of people, being that it is symbolic of the end of 'childhood' for many people who grew up reading these books.

885:

What would happen? Clearly we should not post most entertainment events, but there seems to be clear evidence (best-seller list, movie revenues) that this is a very significant one. Why does it matter if it's in the future?

1482:

Also the site appears very parochial, which seems to be its intention. Since this is an international site it does not seem very appropriate, additionally the site is already listed as one of more that a dozen on the

1941:. Neither had wikipedia articles. Can I just go ahead and edit such entries out? Or is there a prefered template marker of some sort? Or another page to push such things to? Thanks. --Newbie looking for guidance. 1599:

has written a template that can be applied to the link to the New York Times: On This Day. The template will automatically update the link to the current year once the day is either current or past. The template is

1988:, removing redlinked birth/deaths, non-notable events, and miscellaneous external links to http://video.ivillage.com. We need to establish whether removal of redlinked birth/deaths is considered "reverting 403:

I came here due to a film being added to a date I watch, and I find a full-blown flame war going on, usenet style. Be aware; I have used up all my tolerance this week on others. If I see one more post here

486:. Being part of a group with an article or having the page that bears one's name redirect to a different article does not qualify as having one's own article. (And of course, articles are not userpages.) 1068:

I think there should be listed in "Deaths on RANDOM DAY" how the people died. Just short about that. That would save people having to go to the article to see it, what do you guys think about that idea?

495:

Items listed under "Events" should be notable on a global scale, as defined by such and such criteria. Also, only past events should be listed - the Wikicalendar is not the place to speculate on future

222:

OMG, Jim! I see you've been here all of from September of this year! How'd you'd get to be such an expert on everything? Is there somewhere I can go to get some of the expertise myself? Maybe the

1933:

through those discussions). Nor am I looking to discuss a particular non-notable example (I see plenty of those debates as well). Today I used comment tags to remove likely non-notables from

609: 381:

I'm being factual, spam boy. And being criticized for incivility by someone using a phrase like "idiot deletioninsts" (sic)? "Mr. Pot, it's Mr. Kettle on Line 4: he says you're black."

767:

Why not have both? I don't know how the month articles are generated but couldn't it be possible to make sure that the same information is available under the heading "January 1" on

97: 2215:

I can't imagine that being very widespread. I'd like to learn more though. In the example you cited, it might be helpful just to drop a note to the editor who added those dates (

1006:

release date). The reference is also given in the HP7 article and no other item in the article has a reference. There appears to be nothing on the project page about references.

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 182:

I did respond to that comment -- I said that this information serves no purpose whatsoever, in any form, either in individual articles, or on the day of the year pages. The

802:

I think it's needless clutter, but this is not the project that oversees those pages. You might want to bring your ideas up at the place that deals with these matters,

1241: 501: 422: 146: 1896:

This discussion began with the addition of the future date of the 2008 Olympics. This quote from above should help to set the stage for why this is contested.

1790:

Great. Unless anyone objects, I'll have my bot do the replacement work when I get a chance (might be a day or two though since I'm pretty busy at the moment).

1226:). My opinion is that there should be conformity, so, should the Day template be deprecated or the other dates converted to using it? Any thoughts? Cheers. -- 1296:

IMDB has a nice feature for each day that I thought may be useful to put as a link next to the New York times, and BBC link. Here is an example of the page

750:

would be this month's page) and have events listed for each date as subheadings. I personally prefer that way to having a new page for every day - in fact,

608:) who either have or we think would have Top or High- importance to one or more existing projects, as per the standard assessment criteria at, for instance, 2166:

If you want to add every day of the year to your watchlist, you can copy and paste everyday from this link instead of taking the time to add everything. -

1432:

has headings Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, By observance, By faith, By Country, By City, Day of the week, References, External Links.

47: 17: 190:. While I've been waiting for further input on that thread, you've been continuing to make edits that you have been warned are likely to be reverted. -- 1864:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

474:

We've had a lot of good discussion on this page, but would it be helpful at this point to summarize our working guidelines on the project page, such as:

2026:

I've pointed the two logged in editors who have added the link to this page, although I started by pointing them at each others pages for a moment. —

698: 1182:(I got fed-up counting after that) - total estimate (for living people only) of, what, 50,000-100,000 + ? 365 days a year gives us ~ 200 entries 2063: 1175:

than simply having an article? I wouldn't so much say that this is an argument about notability as it is about the quality of the DOTY pages.

643:

importance might be something we have to implement if there is a rash of adding entries, perhaps bot-driven. I checked all of today's births,

408:

addressing whether films should be added to date articles, but comparing, exchanging or even discussing insults, I will block for disruption.

1476: 1855: 1577: 1003: 830: 587: 535: 301: 263: 196: 155: 120: 1484: 754:

already exists with all that information for each date already! Perhaps the individual date pages should be deleted or merged?

2007:

that the iVillage discussion takes place here because this is the best place for it. It is a new development and is tainted by

1601: 492:

The date pages should be kept clean of trivia such as film history, fabricated holidays and observances, fictional events, etc.

562:, etc. Not that many in comparison to humans with articles, but still enough where we should decide one way or the other. 914:

How many books get turned into record-breaking movies? How many books top best-seller lists for weeks (months?) at a time?

2108: 1201:

Was a redlink bot ever made to find redlink additions to the births/deaths sections? I imagine one would still be useful.

1127: 1095: 1013: 976: 951:

any meaningful cultural impact (ushering in a new standard in science fiction movies) rates a mention in these articles.

921: 893: 868: 843: 2188:

Over the last few days, on a handful of unrelated pages (I'll dig up which ones if you'd like me to, the most recent was

386:

P.S.: I have 18,000 edits and have been here as long as you: do you have an insulting excuse for dismissing me, too? --

149:. The user rejected my comments, and proceeded to continue adding the movie releases to the day of the year pages. -- 2235: 2151: 2078: 2019: 1967: 1920: 1888: 1783: 1728: 1612: 1474: 1449: 1281: 1039: 1586:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

965:? From the state of the article, not very, at least compared to Harry Potter. I've just removed this (as well as HP7 2237: 2209: 2174: 2153: 2138: 2116: 2080: 2034: 2021: 2000: 1969: 1949: 1922: 1890: 1846: 1803: 1794: 1785: 1770: 1748: 1730: 1633: 1614: 1559: 1550: 1523: 1505: 1491: 1451: 1414: 1303: 1283: 1270: 1260: 1249: 1230: 1205: 1191: 1157: 1140: 1130: 1098: 1082: 1073: 1058: 1041: 1026: 1016: 979: 955: 934: 924: 909: 896: 880: 871: 856: 846: 810: 789: 758: 740: 706: 677: 616: 592: 566: 540: 519: 509: 463: 454: 441: 415: 394: 375: 339: 230: 215: 201: 174: 160: 139: 999: 962: 38: 482:

subjects of Knowledge articles should be listed. To have an article, a person must meet the criteria outlined in

2219:) and try to find out why it was done (looks like someone already did). BTW, this might get more traction on the 1835: 1640: 1596: 1078:

P.s. When someone replies to this please leave a comment on my talk page. Because I'm not part of this project.

836:

This makes me wonder why all future events and all events pertaining to books, etc. are considered non-notable.

1621: 1054:

This talk page has a lot of great ideas. Isn't it about time we moved some of them over to the project page?

1031:

I interpret this to mean that no Wikicalendar articles should have a references section. Anyone disagree? --

515:

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Does anyone object to the above points being put on the project page?

1992:", and not counted in 3RR. (I only monitor a few dates, but some seem to hit 3RR more often than others.) — 1703: 1694: 1685: 1428:

I've been noticing that many of the Wikicalendar articles have many different types of headings. For example

1266: 411:

That said, adding film info to date articles is absurd. It is trivia-creep. Don't do it. One puppy's opinion.

1676: 1667: 1658: 1649: 1309:

I do not think it is a good idea because one addition will lead to another then another untill we have this--

573: 1361: 995: 600:

Personally, my best bet would be to try to include only those persons and/or animals (and I belong to both

2167: 2135: 2031: 1997: 1079: 1070: 242:

I'm sure a lot of people have been asking that question about you. Meantime, at the risk of editcountitis:

1154: 1342: 803: 585: 533: 295: 257: 194: 153: 114: 1137: 1955:

Go ahead and remove them. Anything with a redlink can definitely be removed. Don't be afraid to be

124: 2206: 1542: 772: 725: 721: 717: 412: 905:

on the best seller list? How many rotate through that list each year? Answer: waaaaay too many.

2060: 1989: 807: 786: 755: 737: 693: 674: 563: 516: 506: 460: 327:

So he has twice the edits you do in a mere fraction of the time. You sure you want to continue the

2143:

I agree with the revert. Subheadings actually make the article longer and harder to maintain. --

2220: 703: 613: 1374: 1136:

Good point.. the German wikipedia has loads of images on their days of the year.. why don't we?

1347: 186:

reason I haven't mass-reverted your edits to the day of the year pages so far is the thread on

2216: 2171: 2131: 2100: 2027: 1993: 1556: 1520: 1502: 1436:

has Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, Religious Observances, External Links.

1124: 1092: 1010: 973: 918: 890: 865: 840: 746:

I believe what has been done in the last year or so is to make a page for a month of year (so

451: 131:). Pretty big step. So, what's the feeling on the appropriateness of these? Yes? No? Maybe? -- 2178: 1620:

Looking at the code with an inexperianced eye it looks like this is using the same template

1370: 582: 530: 391: 372: 336: 291: 253: 227: 212: 191: 171: 150: 136: 110: 1487:

page, where people in search of the more obscure anniversaries will undoubtedly find it. --

1223: 2233: 2149: 2076: 2017: 1965: 1946: 1942: 1918: 1886: 1781: 1726: 1610: 1472: 1447: 1338: 1329: 1279: 1037: 648: 1462: 123:), apparently thwarted from creating separate "X in film" pages (such as the now-deleted 1876:

Discussion on the topic of adding future events to Wikicalendar articles has come up on

1956: 1227: 931: 605: 577: 328: 208: 2189: 2008: 1981: 1300: 1055: 1023: 952: 906: 877: 853: 601: 483: 438: 2224: 2123: 2113: 2105: 2097: 2092: 1767: 1630: 1547: 1488: 1411: 1319: 1257: 1246: 1219: 1211: 1188: 1121: 1089: 1007: 970: 915: 887: 862: 837: 768: 751: 747: 652: 427: 368: 187: 1716:

Yes, that's the same one, I didn't know there was a copy outside the user space -

1178:

Back of the envelope calculation, there are around 9000 articles on living people

2122:

I really didn't see the article as that lengthy, so I reverted. The sublist for

1314: 1839: 1831: 1202: 656: 644: 387: 332: 223: 132: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2231: 2147: 2074: 2057: 2015: 1963: 1916: 1884: 1779: 1724: 1625: 1608: 1470: 1445: 1277: 1035: 1022:

This is basically a list, so the source articles should hold the references.

1393: 2199: 2193: 2056:

references, as it is a video. You can view the latest one by clicking here:

1985: 1945:

22:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (Added links to the dates for convenience.)

1938: 1934: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1398: 736:? Then you can see what actually happened on that particular day instantly. 729: 547: 355:

You may want to brush up on the those mindreading skills while you're at it.

610:

Knowledge:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity/Assessment#Importance scale

559: 1877: 692:

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of

1269:

tagged as a guideline. I started a discussion on that page's talk page

1116:

What's with the lack of images? A recent edit adding the first image to

555: 551: 1403: 1333: 1117: 991: 826: 353:

idiot deletioninsts who like to delete any list having to do with film

1843: 1838:) but if there are any problems whatsoever, please don't hesitate to 1800: 1791: 1745: 1717: 1365: 852:

Right, we don't post most entertainment evens or any future events.

1604:. The template would be used in lieu of using a bot. Comments? -- 1501:

accuracy. I only added links for the remaining days in July so far.

363:

Oh my, Calton, just as civil as usual I see. Called any other women

1720:

copied it there and that's who I was talking about a bot with. --

1388: 1297: 2127: 1222:

template to begin their article, while the majority do not (see

733: 459:

I also support not adding film info to articles. Too trivial.

240:

Is there somewhere I can go to get some of the expertise myself?

2192:), I've seen something quite aggravating. A date, for example, 1379: 1384: 1355: 527:"Only the births and deaths of human beings should be listed." 25: 1959:. The worst that will happen is someone will revert it. -- 1324: 1273:. I hope that some consensus either way can be reached. -- 576:. Hmm...more than I would have guessed. I still think that 1541:

events which I had not noticed in the NZ ones there is also

489:

Only the births and deaths of human beings should be listed.

1928:

How should I delete, mark, or nominate non-notable entries?

1842:

and I'll do my best to fix any issues there may be. Cheers

207:

Well, it would be only polite of you to also take it up on

546:

As far as animals with Knowledge articles, you've got the

127:

page) has taken to adding sections into date pages (as in

1912:

The rest of this conversation is worth reading above. --

423:

Knowledge:Administrators%27_noticeboard#March_15_in_film

364: 128: 1880:. The best place to continue discussion is here. -- 1834:. The template should work just fine (my thanks go to 1088:

Not unless the way they died is somehow significant.

500:

As for the event criteria, does everyone still think

1830:. I think I got every article with the exception of 1799:

Just a quick heads up: I'll be starting in a while.

724:. Why? Wouldn't it be better to be able to link to 470:

Need for explicit statements of project guidelines?

1166:Inclusion criterion *greater* than article status? 450:NOT adding movie release dates to date articles. — 1907:1936 Olympics). Rklawton 13:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 1242:Knowledge:Notability on a global scale over time 2043:Adding iVillage.com's On This Day to references 1899: 861:I gathered that. I still don't understand why. 2184:I believe this should be considered vandalism 1245:the current page? Please help me out here. -- 1240:I just wonder: the project page links to the 478:Only the births and deaths of people who are 8: 1576:The following discussion is preserved as an 2227:. This isn't really the place for it. -- 2058:http://video.ivillage.com/player/?fid=29619 1775:If a bot can do it, let's get it done. -- 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Days of the year 2042: 1410:I feel that in this case less is more. -- 1218:It seems that only certain dates use the 699:User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week 1854:The above discussion is preserved as an 572:Turns out there's a catch-all category: 1456: 1265:I'd like to see the page on notability 876:Consider what would happen if we did. 829:article has an item for the release of 1150: 502:what we came up with earlier this year 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 2130:deaths seems appropriate, though. — 1555:Fair enough - I'll remove them then 2168:User talk:Calendar2123#Days of year 1236:Notability guideline page obsolete? 716:I can see there is one page called 24: 994:article has one item that can be 367:lately, or is that reserved for 2196:, was put in article like this: 1821: 1485:List of historical anniversaries 29: 1394:Dates in American Naval History 629:Thanks for your input, Badbill. 1950:22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC) 1592:NYT: On this day - date update 1: 2047:I would like to suggest that 1059:04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 910:15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 897:02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 707:18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 678:03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 617:15:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 593:08:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 567:07:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 541:07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 520:07:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 510:07:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 464:07:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 2238:00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2210:20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 2175:23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2154:20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 2139:00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 2117:15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1463:Today in New Zealand History 1404:Today in New Zealand History 1027:13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1017:09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 969:) from the July 21 article. 881:19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 872:03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 857:13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 847:09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 811:22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 790:20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 759:15:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 741:15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 455:20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 442:13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 416:10:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 395:07:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 376:07:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 340:07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 231:06:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 216:06:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 202:06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 175:06:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 161:06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 140:05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 2081:13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2064:21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 2035:21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 2022:21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 2001:18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 1970:22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 1923:02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 1891:01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 1461:An editor has begun adding 1180:who's surnames begin with A 2254: 1847:21:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1804:18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1795:17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 1786:15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 1771:23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1749:22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1731:21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1634:21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1624:and has an example on the 1615:19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1457:'Another this day in' link 1299:. What do you all think? 1206:06:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 1192:20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 1099:01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1083:22:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 1074:23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 980:12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 963:The Fellowship of the Ring 956:18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 935:17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 925:02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 145:I expressed my opinion at 1597:User:Madman bum and angel 1560:03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1551:18:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 1524:21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1506:04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1492:00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1477:00:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1452:02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1415:18:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 1366:This Day in Movie History 1284:16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 1131:07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 1042:17:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 304:) - since 14 October 2004 1861:Please do not modify it. 1622:Template:NYT_On_this_day 1583:Please do not modify it. 1399:Today in Beatles history 1330:The History Channel, USA 1325:Today in Science History 1304:21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 1292:Link to IMDB on this day 1261:02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1250:20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 1158:16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 1149:see also the discussion 1141:08:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 437:- per KillerChihuahua. 1424:Consistency in headings 1380:Today in rotten history 1339:The History Channel, UK 1231:22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 574:Category:Famous animals 266:) - since 7 August 2006 1910: 1320:World History Database 428:WP:AN#User:Hanuman_Das 314:Mainspace edits: 2,957 276:Mainspace edits: 6,084 147:WP:AN#March 15 in film 1315:Daily Content Archive 804:Portal:Current events 42:of past discussions. 1836:Madman bum and angel 688:Knowledge Day Awards 1343:This Day in History 1334:This Day in History 961:How significant is 901:How many books are 525:I don't agree with 273:Total edits: 10,893 1705:The New York Times 1696:The New York Times 1687:The New York Times 1678:The New York Times 1669:The New York Times 1660:The New York Times 1651:The New York Times 1642:The New York Times 1349:The New York Times 1105:Note from new user 645:December_30#Births 311:Total edits: 5,148 2217:User:Felicity4711 1976:Vandalism and 3RR 1080:TheBlazikenMaster 1071:TheBlazikenMaster 712:One page per day? 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2245: 2230: 2179:User:Michfan2123 2146: 2111: 2103: 2073: 2014: 1962: 1915: 1883: 1863: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1778: 1723: 1646:feb 29 not work 1607: 1585: 1469: 1444: 1375:Today In History 1371:Associated Press 1276: 1034: 1000:reliable sources 606:WikiProject Dogs 602:WikiProject Cats 125:March 15 in film 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2253: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2228: 2207:Tromboneguy0186 2186: 2164: 2144: 2109: 2101: 2089: 2087:Year subheaders 2071: 2045: 2012: 1978: 1960: 1930: 1913: 1881: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1859: 1822: 1820: 1776: 1721: 1605: 1594: 1581: 1467: 1459: 1442: 1426: 1356:On-This-Day.com 1294: 1274: 1238: 1216: 1199: 1168: 1114: 1107: 1066: 1052: 1032: 988: 823: 773:January 1, 2005 726:January 1, 2007 722:January 1, 2007 718:January 1, 2005 714: 690: 649:Rudyard Kipling 590: 538: 472: 413:KillerChihuahua 199: 158: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2251: 2249: 2241: 2240: 2185: 2182: 2163: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2061:Patricksandora 2044: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1929: 1926: 1909: 1908: 1898: 1897: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1866: 1850: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1797: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1711: 1710: 1701: 1692: 1683: 1674: 1665: 1656: 1647: 1637: 1636: 1593: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1495: 1494: 1458: 1455: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1418: 1417: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1396: 1391: 1382: 1377: 1368: 1358: 1353: 1345: 1336: 1327: 1322: 1317: 1311: 1310: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1237: 1234: 1215: 1209: 1198: 1195: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1155:131.111.24.187 1144: 1143: 1120:was reverted. 1113: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1065: 1064:I got an idea. 1062: 1051: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 987: 984: 983: 982: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 927: 822: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 808:Fabricationary 795: 794: 793: 792: 787:Jacob Lundberg 779: 778: 777: 776: 762: 761: 756:Fabricationary 738:Jacob Lundberg 713: 710: 689: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 675:Fabricationary 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 655:, and perhaps 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 622: 621: 620: 619: 588: 578:Koko (gorilla) 570: 569: 564:Fabricationary 536: 523: 522: 517:Fabricationary 507:Fabricationary 498: 497: 493: 490: 487: 471: 468: 467: 466: 461:Fabricationary 457: 444: 431: 430: 425: 398: 397: 383: 382: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 345: 344: 343: 342: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 312: 306: 305: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 274: 268: 267: 246: 245: 244: 243: 234: 233: 219: 218: 197: 180: 179: 178: 177: 164: 163: 156: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2250: 2239: 2236: 2234: 2232: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2208: 2202: 2201: 2197: 2195: 2191: 2190:Lark Voorhies 2183: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2161: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2148: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2107: 2104: 2099: 2094: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2075: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2054: 2053:"On This day" 2050: 2049:iVillage.com' 2036: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2018: 2016: 2010: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1966: 1964: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1927: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1917: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1889: 1887: 1885: 1879: 1872:Future events 1871: 1865: 1862: 1857: 1852: 1851: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1828: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1782: 1780: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1769: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1750: 1747: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1725: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1707:: On This Day 1706: 1702: 1699: 1698:: On This Day 1697: 1693: 1690: 1689:: On This Day 1688: 1684: 1681: 1680:: On This Day 1679: 1675: 1672: 1671:: On This Day 1670: 1666: 1663: 1662:: On This Day 1661: 1657: 1654: 1653:: On This Day 1652: 1648: 1645: 1644:: On This Day 1643: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1609: 1603: 1598: 1591: 1587: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1544: 1543:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1525: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1507: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1473: 1471: 1464: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1448: 1446: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1423: 1421: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1357: 1354: 1352: 1351:: On This Day 1350: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1337: 1335: 1331: 1328: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1318: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1291: 1285: 1282: 1280: 1278: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1243: 1235: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1213: 1210: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1196: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1174: 1165: 1159: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1111: 1109: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1063: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1049: 1043: 1040: 1038: 1036: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 985: 981: 978: 975: 972: 968: 964: 960: 959: 958: 957: 954: 936: 933: 928: 926: 923: 920: 917: 913: 912: 911: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 895: 892: 889: 884: 883: 882: 879: 875: 874: 873: 870: 867: 864: 860: 859: 858: 855: 851: 850: 849: 848: 845: 842: 839: 834: 832: 828: 820: 812: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 791: 788: 783: 782: 781: 780: 774: 770: 766: 765: 764: 763: 760: 757: 753: 749: 745: 744: 743: 742: 739: 735: 731: 728:, instead of 727: 723: 719: 711: 709: 708: 705: 704:Badbilltucker 700: 695: 687: 679: 676: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 658: 654: 650: 646: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 618: 615: 614:Badbilltucker 611: 607: 603: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 591: 586: 584: 579: 575: 568: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 542: 539: 534: 532: 528: 521: 518: 514: 513: 512: 511: 508: 503: 494: 491: 488: 485: 481: 477: 476: 475: 469: 465: 462: 458: 456: 453: 449: 445: 443: 440: 436: 433: 432: 429: 426: 424: 420: 419: 418: 417: 414: 409: 407: 402: 396: 393: 389: 385: 384: 380: 379: 378: 377: 374: 370: 366: 354: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 341: 338: 334: 330: 326: 325: 324: 323: 313: 310: 309: 308: 307: 303: 300: 297: 293: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 275: 272: 271: 270: 269: 265: 262: 259: 255: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 241: 238: 237: 236: 235: 232: 229: 225: 221: 220: 217: 214: 210: 206: 205: 204: 203: 200: 195: 193: 189: 185: 176: 173: 168: 167: 166: 165: 162: 159: 154: 152: 148: 144: 143: 142: 141: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 119: 116: 112: 106:Film listings 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2203: 2198: 2187: 2172:Calendar2123 2165: 2132:Arthur Rubin 2124:September 11 2093:September 11 2090: 2052: 2048: 2046: 2028:Arthur Rubin 1994:Arthur Rubin 1990:WP:VANDALISM 1979: 1931: 1911: 1900: 1875: 1860: 1853: 1826: 1818: 1704: 1695: 1686: 1677: 1668: 1659: 1650: 1641: 1595: 1582: 1575: 1557:Jamie Mackay 1521:Jamie Mackay 1503:Jamie Mackay 1460: 1427: 1419: 1348: 1295: 1239: 1217: 1212:Template:Day 1200: 1183: 1179: 1177: 1172: 1169: 1138:131.111.8.98 1115: 1108: 1077: 1067: 1053: 1050:Project page 989: 966: 949: 902: 835: 824: 821:Non-notable? 769:January 2005 752:January 2005 748:January 2007 715: 691: 653:Sandy Koufax 571: 526: 524: 499: 479: 473: 447: 434: 410: 405: 400: 399: 362: 352: 298: 260: 239: 183: 181: 117: 109: 78: 43: 37: 1832:February 29 1389:On This Day 986:References? 694:Esperanza's 657:Tiger Woods 647:, and only 583:Jim Douglas 531:Jim Douglas 373:Hanuman Das 365:stalker boy 329:dick-waving 292:Hanuman Das 254:Jim Douglas 228:Hanuman Das 224:Johnny Depp 213:Hanuman Das 192:Jim Douglas 172:Hanuman Das 151:Jim Douglas 111:Hanuman Das 36:This is an 1947:Hult041956 1943:Hult041956 1840:contact me 1626:December 1 1197:Bot Status 720:, but not 589:(contribs) 537:(contribs) 480:themselves 452:Wrathchild 421:See also: 226:article? — 198:(contribs) 157:(contribs) 98:Archive 10 2200:5 January 2194:January 5 2162:Watchlist 1986:October 3 1939:August 22 1935:January 4 1438:January 3 1434:January 2 1430:January 1 1228:MZMcBride 932:Bigbrisco 903:currently 730:January 1 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 2091:Because 2051:s daily 1878:August 8 1301:Remember 1056:Rklawton 1024:Rklawton 996:verified 953:Rklawton 907:Rklawton 878:Rklawton 854:Rklawton 771:, as on 439:Rklawton 302:contribs 264:contribs 121:contribs 1980:I'm at 1856:archive 1768:Drappel 1682:july 31 1673:july 30 1664:july 29 1655:july 28 1631:Drappel 1578:archive 1548:Drappel 1489:Drappel 1412:Drappel 1258:Drappel 1247:Wernher 1189:SFC9394 1184:per day 1118:July 21 992:July 21 827:July 21 496:events. 448:support 435:Support 401:WARNING 369:Ekajati 209:WP:FILM 39:archive 2221:WT:UTM 2136:(talk) 2032:(talk) 2011:. -- 2009:WP:COI 1998:(talk) 1982:WP:3RR 1819:Okay, 1718:User:S 1709:aug 03 1700:aug 02 1691:aug 01 1203:Soosed 1173:higher 1112:Images 998:using 548:clones 484:WP:BIO 388:Calton 333:Calton 133:Calton 2229:Mufka 2225:WP:VP 2145:Mufka 2072:Mufka 2013:Mufka 1961:Mufka 1914:Mufka 1882:Mufka 1777:Mufka 1722:Mufka 1606:Mufka 1468:Mufka 1443:Mufka 1275:Mufka 1214:usage 1151:above 1128:Drake 1125:Jason 1122:Brian 1096:Drake 1093:Jason 1090:Brian 1033:Mufka 1014:Drake 1011:Jason 1008:Brian 1002:(the 977:Drake 974:Jason 971:Brian 967:again 922:Drake 919:Jason 916:Brian 894:Drake 891:Jason 888:Brian 869:Drake 866:Jason 863:Brian 844:Drake 841:Jason 838:Brian 560:orcas 188:WP:AN 16:< 2177:aka 2128:2001 1957:bold 1937:and 1827:Done 1602:here 1441:-- 1362:IMDb 1360:The 1271:here 1267:here 1224:here 990:The 825:The 734:2007 604:and 556:cats 552:dogs 392:Talk 337:Talk 331:? -- 296:talk 258:talk 184:only 137:Talk 129:here 115:talk 2223:or 2134:| 2114:ino 2030:| 1996:| 1984:on 1858:. 1385:BBC 1220:Day 1004:HP7 831:HP7 806:. 406:not 371:? — 2126:, 2096:-- 1766:-- 1629:-- 1580:. 1546:-- 1387:: 1373:: 1364:: 1341:: 1332:: 1153:. 732:, 651:, 558:, 554:, 550:, 446:I 390:| 335:| 135:| 94:→ 64:← 2170:- 2110:ē 2106:r 2102:@ 2098:M 1844:S 1801:S 1792:S 1746:S 785:/ 775:? 299:· 294:( 261:· 256:( 118:· 113:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 5 - Knowledge

Index