994:
as
September 11 in the Julian Calendar in that it is the date with that name. I'd like to know of some specific deficiency in the date articles other than that they say Gregorian at the top. That could be easily changed, but to what? Is there some true utility in being explicit about whether an event occurred in the Gregorian or Julian calendar? If I were born on September 11 and next week someone decided that all dates would shift 12 days forward, I would still consider my birthday to be September 11. Practice has been to list items in the Gregorian date whenever possible.
2429:
discussing this here and that is more than usual. I had hoped that you would have contributed to the conversation earlier since you were one of the involved editors who brought this issue up. Now I hope that you will contribute constructive suggestions for how this should be dealt with. I have removed the bullet from the project page and look forward to further discussion. The separate dab page was not what I had intended, but probably what I inferred. --
31:
825:
many section headings and it also contains many unsupported entries as well as a references section. The reason that I haven't attacked it yet is that I figured that since it is the first day of the year, and there are a lot of things associated with it, it could be an exception. But I don't like exceptions because they lead to more exceptions. Thoughts? --
166:
current month. If people are looking for an overview of the month then they can click on the header, they can also go to the previous and next months. The digits allow people to go to a perticular day in the month. Personally I think most people, when looking at 'on this day' type pages want to be able to see where 'this day' fits within the current month.
489:. I've been thinking about this recently. We enforce this for the years that the events, births, deaths are listed, but not for entries with year of death of year of birth listed at the end of the entry. In the case of WP:DAYS it is pretty consistently applied. Another example where someone might link something more than once is in the case of
320:
2128:" May 6 would never be the natural title of an article about the Hindenburg disaster. The various events are listed within the article. The whole article is practically a big disambiguation page. I like a clean intro, but we need to provide a provision for the possibility that disambiguation is genuinely required - and it rarely will be. --
2724:
To answer the question asked, calendar-related text seems fairly obvious on point, and while I feel that certain dates which are actually shorthand for globally significant events (like 'September 11th' or 'May 1st') or have some significant global or widespread awareness (such 'April 1st', 'December
2048:
Disambig doesn't work in this case to my mind. September 11 means the date only. If you include events, then you open up a whole lot of these. May 9 for example means
Victory Day for the Russians. Nearly every country has a special date related event, and would be refered to as the date. Also, if you
1839:
Regardimng the original statement by Mufka: "There has been some back and forth on the addition of introductions that begin with statements like "This date is significant because ...". Rather than having discussion on each individual talk page, it would be more productive to centralize the discussion
1696:
is. As far as "events" are concerned, there are many events which would be at least on a par with the WTC bombings. Examples are the dropping of the bomb on
Hiroshima (August 6), the end of World War 1 (November 11), the start of WW2 (September 3) and Kennedy assassination (November 22). All of these
922:
One of the factors in the deprecation of date links is the problem they can create with making a date falsely appear to be in the
Gregorian calendar. All the day-month articles I've looked at are grossly deficient in handling the Gregorian/Julian calendar issue. They all mention Gregorian at the top,
623:
It is a much easier format to overview when scrolling down the page. Otherwise, births, deaths and events blend together. I had started to format each day this way, but my changes were reverted. It was my intention to be helpful, not harmful to the pages. This is my suggested format for the days:
2428:
There is generally low levels of input on this project page. What usually happens is a topic is discussed by those who are interested. If agreement is reached, changes are implemented. If there is conflict, discussion continues. This flowchart really shows how it works. There were three editors
1902:
It always gets back always to the question "do you allow or not allow". If the intro is left empty, there is no problem. If items are allowed in the intro, then there is no argument whatsoever for blocking other intros of a similar nature. If Canada Day is allowed, why not the national days of every
1507:
This is not addressing my concerns. It seems that certain events are considered important enough to warrant being in the intro and others not. I think it is based on political reasons. This is worse than POV to my mind. We have to make this consistent. Either we have date related events for specific
1373:
I'm not endorsing the inclusion on
September 11, just explaining why I think it might be reasonable. I wouldn't oppose exclusion across the board. But I think if that one is removed, there will be protest - which might help add to this discussion. Could you point out examples of "other day pages
1342:
hmmm. You seem to be agreeing with me more here. Mufka is implying that "special cases" like
September 11 should maybe be included as "exceptions". I agree with you that, if we do not want intros on just about every day, we stick to calendar related data, such as an equinox note. The other stuff is,
824:
January 1 is the one date page (and
February 29 to a lesser degree) that is not formatted according to the template. I have thought about adjusting it but I am concerned that there will be some backlash. IMO the page is a mess and should be adjusted to the layout of all of the other pages. It has
701:
These pages, as a group, get a lot of edits. I see a problem with the years that have only one entry. An editor wanting to add another entry for a year that previously only had one might just add a new entry as they do now. Then we would have some with the new format and some with the old. These
678:
I guess as I look at some of the "year" entries, it is a much more organized looking format. I agree that casual editors COULD mess it up, but we have that problem with ANY page that is on
Knowledge. This formatting is probably one of the easiest to grasp. Why not be bold and set a goal to reformat
258:
The calendar that is on the date pages links to the other date pages (not specific dates). That is how it is meant to work. By changing the links in the calendar, you're sending people to a different set of pages. Neither of the examples that you've made above are accurate representations of what
1815:
The only danger is the term "widely recognized". Where do you draw the line? It does become POV. It is also an excuse to bring in items linked to holidays (such as events). I personally think that holidays should be left off the intro too. The holidays are covered later in the article. As you say,
1389:
Sure. July 4 and July 14 for starters. You mention a protest about "that one" being removed. That is at the heart of the matter. It seems that the matter is becoming political, which I always suspected. As I mentioned, different dates are important to different countries and different age groups. I
1241:
The problem that I see in general is that choosing which event gets added to the intro would be entirely subjective. In the case of
September 11, I don't think anyone will argue that when they hear that date, they think of September 11, 2001. While December 7 is a significant date, and overall it
993:
I can't make heads or tails of the deprecation discussions and I cannot find a consensus within them. Whether a date is Julian or
Gregorian seems to be of little consequence. September 11 is September 11 - there is only one article for the date. September 11 in the Gregorian Calendar is the same
965:
in 1644? The Tippermuir article has no references, so it's hard to be sure. The Julian calendar was in effect where the battle was, but the next article is about the death of Louis XIV of France in 1715. That one is probably in the Gregorian calendar, since that was what was in effect in France. So
658:
I am not totally opposed to this suggestion. One problem with the change is that it needs to be implemented across the board - to every article, all at the same time. We could get a bot to do it if there is consensus for the change. Another problem is that it would be difficult to maintain. I'm
107:
It has been suggested that, since the Wikicalendar articles are not year specific, the calendar (in the top right corner) should be yearless. This means that the box would be simply a list of links to the articles for the given month. Basically, it would look like a calendar minus the days across
1265:
So, it seems you are making a special one-off exception for September 11. When you mention "anyone" it is again subjective. To a Chilean, September 11 refers to the Allende overthrow. This is also mentioned in the intro. As for December 7, you are probably right, the younger people might not know,
493:
for example. I don't feel that linking every instance is necessary. WP:OVERLINK says that "It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section." In our application we're talking
1588:
Mufka. Sounds like the best solution. Is this now the agreed position? Do we now start to remove all the introductions? As Rick said, if the info is purely calendar related, then its OK. I suppose the January 1 and February 29 is limited to explaining that one is the first day of the year and the
1550:
I guess Rick Block is right about using {{for}} because it is just a different way of writing an intro. But, I think the {{for}} should be allowed when it is needed for disambiguation. For a random hypothetical example, suppose that there is a song titled September 11. In that case the {{for}}
845:
In case it hasn't been/isn't being addressed elsewhere, I think a section on Fictional events might be entertaining on these pages. There a number of events with set dates in fiction (Judgement day in the Terminator films, Moon ripped from orbit in Space:1999, Felix Unger asked to remove himself
1146:
There has been some back and forth on the addition of introductions that begin with statements like "This date is significant because ...". Rather than having discussion on each individual talk page, it would be more productive to centralize the discussion here. Since the Events section is the
2157:
I'm not so sure. Where I come from I rarely hear of this being refered to as September 11. It is called nine eleven (written 9/11). More common would be Fourth of July or the Fifth of May in western countries. I think there is far too much "complication" surrounding 9/11, even to the extent of
1172:
As can be seen, there is not one "elevated event" but four topics covered here! Most other day articles have no intro. Either we allow intros for all such articles or none. I must admit that with September 11, I normally associated it with the Allende government overthrow, at least before 2001
165:
Keep it as an actual calendar. I think having a calendar that isn't really a calendar would just be annoying. If you make it a list of days in the month then it is just a duplicate of the list at the bottom of the pages. The calendar allows people to quickly see where today falls within the
1007:
Whether or not a MOS policy exists, I would support unlinking "birth years in the "#Deaths" section and death years in the "#Births" section". But I think unlinking all years will disrupt readability. I guess I would say that all years that begin an entry should be linked as they are (first
1218:
In other places of the world the media also use it as shorthand for other events; for example, the September 11, 1973 Coup d'Ćtat in Chile is referred to as "El 11 de Septiembre" or "El once" ("September 11" or "The eleventh" in Spanish) as shorthand for the Coup events; September 11 is also
1071:
I said I was neutral, and I meant it. If the proposal suggesting that linking the years of birth and death in an article about the person fails, I'd lean more in favor of keeping the dates, but I don't consider it a serious problem. Unlike the global "deprecation" of year links, this one
2710:
s in place of actual arguments, it's rather hard to see the motivation for or value in in engaging with this editor. Certainly his laughably 'pot-calling-the-kettle-black' comment about my 'simply revert everything put in deserves not to be taken seriously given his reverting and lack of
1840:
here. Since the Events section is the first section in the page and the first to be read, it seems reasonable that special introductions should be excluded because, depending on the perspective, any one event could be elevated to the intro. What, if any, exceptions should be granted?"
2297:
No changes to what you say, Mufka. I have re-read what you said and probably jumped to the wrong conclusions (my fault entirely). I think we all in agreement now. We just have a "vanilla" intro and one disambiguation pointer is OK. The months of the year have this idea, for example
755:
also lists Catherine II of Russia as being born on that date. To list her (or anyone else for that matter) as being born on both dates without clarification is to mislead anyone who doesn't click through to the article for that individual. Is there some sort of policy for this?
2352:
It is OK to move forward. But don't be surprised if it is challenged. If it is, direct discussion here. Also, and most important, be sure to use a descriptive edit summary when removing the intros. Failing to do so is sure to trigger immediate reversion. An edit summary like
2158:
refering to the date November 11th! It seems that some people would be happy to make a single case for 9/11. If that resolves the situation, we could leave every date intro alone, except September 11, which could have two disambiguations, one for the USA and one for Chile.
313:
It seems to me the existing user warning templates may not be sufficiently precise for addressing users who add redlinks to the date in history pages. Would a new standard level 1 user warning template be helpful and, if so, what would you think of the following language:
862:
The topic of fictional events has been discussed before and I still support exclusion of fictional events in the date pages. The pages are lists of historically significant events and fictional events are never historically significant. Separate articles such as
1076:
easily be managed either way by a bot; especially since there are only 366 articles to go through, and a bot could mark any instance of a number in the #Births and #Deaths sections which isn't clearly a year of birth or year of death for human consideration. ā
263:
while leaving the label January 2008, but I don't think it is a problem. Additionally, if you link to the actual date (as it is in the example), the pages are not there until the date draws near. Then your linking to nothing, where is the value in that? (See
1954:
all of the examples where this is true and add them. They will be flushed out over time. Using {{for}} covers the need for disambiguation, is short and sweet, and it prevents editors from adding poorly written intros about their favorite holiday. How's this:
1313:
as Hitler's birthday (mostly including this to make the point - there are many fanatical neo-nazi types who would argue excluding this would not be NPOV)? On the other hand, I don't have any problem with calendar-centric notes, for example the equinox note at
181:
I certainly agree with your first remark (a duplicate of the list at the bottom). Frankly, I had not noticed that list at the bottom, so perhaps the duplicate is not a bad idea. I shall not judge about your other remarks, I do not know what most people think.
2757:
User:Philly jawn has begun adding the {{commons}} template to the date pages (it was already on some). I don't have a problem with this and if there is no objection, I will add it to the template and follow up to make sure it hits all the date pages. --
1147:
first section in the page and the first to be read, it seems reasonable that special introductions should be excluded because, depending on the perspective, any one event could be elevated to the intro. What, if any, exceptions should be granted? --
259:
is currently on the date pages. As far as the year in the header, it is a label so everyone knows that the calendar is for the current year. It links to what it says. If there is a consensus that this is confusing, then we could change the link to
2423:
227:
I won't, I have no opinion about everything. Others will have a stronger opinion than I and they will take care of consensus. But there is something wrong when a calendar displays "March 2008" (with a year) in its header while it contains links to
1212:
The terms September 11th, 11th September, 11 September, and 9/11 (pronounced "Nine-eleven") have been widely used in the Western media as a shorthand for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon in the United States of
1292:
I agree with Mufka here. Choosing even a few events (or births, deaths, or holidays) a particular date is most known for to elevate to an introduction seems like an entirely subjective exercise likely to devolve into a POV nightmare. Should
798:. I would further suggest that no event should be mentioned unless the article linked to has a clear statement of what calendar is used within the article. Catherine II would get listed, since the article for her indicates the calendar, but
2257:
Wallie: What changes to you propose to the bullet item I proposed above? I think what you are saying is pretty much what the bullet says. And I agree with Rick Block, let's take September 11 off the table for discussion purposes. --
421:
2105:
to the pages, it won't be as widespread as you suggest. If they haven't already been added, they are not likely to be added. The purpose if disambiguation is to cover the cases when an editor types in September 11 and reasonably
1870:
be added. What if they are? And yes, I think that whatever is decided gets added to the style guide. Rick Block's draft bullet is good, but we really need to consider the dab part. It could be very loosely interpreted and
901:, we should determine whether birth years in the "#Deaths" section and death years in the "#Births" section should remain linked. I'm neutral on that, but we need to specify. In my opinion, such a style guideline here would
1945:
we need to allow {{for}} in the case of widely recognized holidays that have a dedicated article on the subject and are commonly referred to by the same name as the date article. If we don't allow for this, we run afoul of
2186:
Re: mufka (latest version). OK, lets exclude everything from the intro, but only allow a disambiguation pointer, which is used when a date refers to something else other than a date (which should be very rare).
1551:
could be placed above the intro. We could just limit the intro on all date pages to the {{Day}} template and leave it at that. There are two cases that I think should be considered for exclusion from this -
1242:
is probably most recognized as the date of the Pearl Harbor attack, a random survey asking individuals what occurred on December 7 would probably reveal that most don't know what happened on that date. --
923:
but what about all the early dates? Are they all Gregorian. Do they switch from one line to the next, depending on the location of the event? Do they switch between 4 October 1582 and 15 October 1583? --
604:
I have a question. I have noticed that it is very difficult to read the deaths, births, and events as they are currently listed. I noticed that on the "year" pages, the listing looks as follows:
323:
Welcome to Knowledge. Please do not add events or people who do not have Knowledge articles to Knowledge's date in history pages, as you did at ]ā. If you would like to experiment, please use the
2556:. Arguing with CW over his lack of participation is not productive. We must take his concerns and try to come to a consensus. Starting a sentence with "With people like yourself" borders on
2123:"Disambiguation in Knowledge is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the
1508:
countries or we don't on the intro. If these intros remain, it is fair enough to add others related to other countries to redress the balance. Otherwise they should all be removed. Thank you.
1761:
This would take all events, births, deaths, and holidays totally off the table which is simple and requires virtually no judgment. I'd be OK with this, but would also be OK with including
562:
where you see a lot of overlinking. So in a nutshell, there are a lot of competing style guides that may appear to apply to more than they do. Perhaps they should be consolidated. --
1266:
but older people sure would. I personally think this discussion is becoming political. (that would be unfortunate) That is the reason why there are four separate topics convered in the
94:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
265:
2526:
CalendarWatcher. We have been discussing these issues for the past two weeks and those particpating agreed to have disambiguation pages and clear out the rest of the intros.
961:
Let me give an example, the article "". The top of the page only mentions the Gregorian calendar. Does that mean all the dates in the article are Gregorian? What about the
2024:
templates, one for each favorite holiday or event. Currently there are at least four of these for September 11. My personal preference remains to leave the intros clear.
149:
See these pictures and click the digits to see the difference. Top: which do not belong to a particular year. Bottom: dates have a weekday and link to a date in a year.
554:
discussion took place. WP:OVERLINK also says that "Stand alone years do not need to be linked" and the second instance of any date usually isn't linked. The link to
2725:
25th' or 'December 26th') should have some explanatory text, the hat note--as long as they don't follow that foolish consistency (or consistent foolishness) of
1866:. But I do foresee considerable resistance that we will only realize once we remove stuff. The {{for}} option needs to be carefully considered because they
1404:
I don't think it is intentionally political. What if we just allowed the use of {{for}} and excluded any other event specific additions to the intro? --
47:
17:
1099:
Is it desirable or is it undesirable for dates of birth and death at the top of a biography article to be linked to corresponding "day" and "year" pages?
558:
is an attempt to show an example of how one might add multiple deaths caused by the same event (e.g. Pearl Harbor). WP:DAYS doesn't apply to things like
1390:
think that either all intros should be removed or they should all be allowed. There should be no "sacred cows" or special cases like with September 11.
659:
afraid that casual editors are very likely to mess it up. There are very few formatting errors with the current format - just some overlinking. --
2498:
CW - do you agree with the general idea of keeping these pages "intro-free" (except in cases for dates having calendar-specific information, like
1202:
September 11 is the 254th day of the year (255th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. There are 111 days remaining until the end of the year.
1121:
1724:
470:. Does anyone know the status of reaching more consistency with regard to wikilinking items past the first one? Please advise. Thanks. --
1875:
is a good example. Is July 1 a search term for Canada Day? And the half-way point note seems like the kind of calendar related trivia the
1309:(at least quasi-religious, not secular, but clearly what this day is "most known" for in the US, Europe, and probably South America) or
757:
136:
and 365 other pages display a calendar. The calendar header shows the year 2008, but if you click on a date, it links to, for example
771:
Yes, it is suggested that the birth (or death) be listed under only the NS date. The listing on the OS date should be removed. See
2733:--would be a compromise that would prevent the page being cluttered with subjective nonsense of 'The day is significant because of
1459:
has an intro mentioning Halloween and Reformation Day. Do we want to limit this to one link, or would we turn this intro into two
2382:
Two people does NOT make an agreement, especially the rather silly implementation of creating a dab pages with single entries for
2057:, you may be suprised at the reponses. Don't get me wrong. I do think that "9/11" was a special event. But then again, so was the
1008:
occurrence in section only) while all others are unlinked. Enforcement of this, like many other things, would be cumbersome. --
891:
With the new depreciation of datelinks, we need to specify whether or not we want to override that for these articles for the
523:
Dates when they contain a day, month, and year ā ] ] ā or day and month ā ] ā should be linked for date preference formatting.
458:(as well as Births and Deaths), they keep showing examples of wikilinking all of the dates, and not just the first. But for
428:
730:
846:
from his place of residence, etc), and adding them in a clearly separate category could be a fun addition to the project
495:
455:
1844:
I do not see what has changed. As he said, "introductions should be excluded". The best idea is to have no exceptions.
2766:
2654:
2585:
2453:
2437:
2399:
2369:
2266:
2136:
2007:
1887:
1615:
1567:
1412:
1382:
1250:
1155:
1064:
1045:
1016:
875:
833:
783:
714:
667:
570:
551:
526:
525:- making the 'unlinked' style a problem for year pages. There was a previous discussion on formats quite a while back
506:
442:
403:
301:
276:
116:
528:- the winner wound up as the timeline standard; Option 1, the second choice, looks like what WP:DAYS uses now? BTW,
2768:
2746:
2681:
2656:
2617:
2587:
2535:
2513:
2439:
2415:
2371:
2346:
2311:
2268:
2232:
2196:
2167:
2138:
2078:
2033:
2009:
1931:
1912:
1889:
1853:
1825:
1794:
1706:
1669:
1638:). I agree country-specific items should be excluded, but I'm not so sure about globally recognized holidays, e.g.
1617:
1598:
1569:
1517:
1474:
1414:
1399:
1384:
1356:
1329:
1279:
1252:
1232:
1186:
1157:
1136:
1115:
1084:
1066:
1047:
1018:
975:
948:
932:
916:
877:
855:
835:
811:
785:
765:
716:
703:
688:
669:
652:
586:
572:
545:
508:
486:
479:
444:
405:
340:
303:
293:
I have moved all of the guideline info from this page so now this page is just a project page, as it should be. --
278:
241:
210:
191:
172:
158:
118:
38:
2742:
2411:
467:
463:
1443:
I'm not sure {{for}} is particularly different than an intro - what would the suggestion be for what warrants a
2730:
2642:
You might be right. But let's see if we can get a civil discussion to continue. If not, we'll have to go to
126:
123:
2479:, which might get more people to comment here), but I think it'd be better if Wallie simply tagged them with
1451:
links can be included for holidays or events globally associated with the date"? Would the existing link on
1207:
It is usually the first day of the Coptic calendar and Ethiopian calendar (in the period AD 1900 to AD 2099).
1132:
684:
648:
237:
187:
154:
2726:
2403:
2335:
2) We include disambiguation pointers (one line) for certain dates where the actual date has two meanings.
1081:
971:
945:
928:
913:
807:
761:
740:
475:
385:
1103:
851:
204:
Please comment on my other remarks, that why I put them there. We need discussion to reach concensus.
2711:
understanding of the meaning of the term, nor can I take someone seriously who doesn't even understand
233:
183:
150:
2448:
I agree the DAB pages for May 1 and July 14 are perhaps not the best idea. For these I'd much prefer
1776:
847:
2738:
2508:
2407:
2227:
1789:
1664:
1469:
1324:
1056:
With no objections, I will put in a bot request to begin unlinking the years as mentioned above. --
962:
702:
pages are pretty high profile so being bold is not a good idea here. This has come up before. See
373:
141:
2058:
367:
361:
355:
349:
336:
2483:
2066:
1128:
802:
would not, since his article does not indicate which dates are Gregorian and which are Julian. --
748:
680:
644:
582:
541:
518:
794:
How is the reader supposed to know all the dates are Gregorian? Most readers will be unaware of
1685:
2062:
1347:
page. Other day pages have country specific dates in them too, such as national holidays etc.
1078:
1030:
967:
942:
924:
910:
906:
884:
803:
471:
379:
324:
577:
Agree with all of this. Thanks for explaining December 7, I hadn't read that closely enough.
2677:
2613:
2531:
2342:
2307:
2192:
2163:
2074:
2029:
1927:
1908:
1849:
1821:
1702:
1607:
I suggest that we wait a few days to see of there is any more input. There's no hurry. --
1594:
1513:
1395:
1352:
1343:
as you mentioned, is very POV indeed. That is why there are so many alternative POVs on the
1275:
1228:
1182:
1111:
424:
that might interest members of this project. Changes on this front could affect the use of
2560:
and does not help the argument. I am confident that CW will not just do whatever he wants.
2764:
2652:
2583:
2503:
2435:
2367:
2264:
2222:
2134:
2005:
1885:
1784:
1659:
1613:
1565:
1464:
1410:
1380:
1319:
1248:
1153:
1062:
1043:
1014:
873:
831:
781:
744:
712:
665:
568:
504:
440:
417:
401:
299:
274:
114:
550:
I don't want to mix apples and oranges. WP:DAYS doesn't follow WP:YEARS which is where
2687:
Given User:Wallie's belligerence, edit-warring, self-serving mis-quotations of policy,
2577:
Let's allow CW to respond to Rick Block's question and see if we can move forward. --
2356:
1780:
795:
772:
529:
332:
706:
discussion for some background. Consensus for change on this is not easy to get. --
2643:
2557:
2553:
2476:
2472:
2119:
1968:
template except in cases of days having specific calendar-related significance (e.g.
1947:
1740:
template except in cases of days having specific calendar-related significance (e.g.
1693:
1270:
article. People are making a point that September 11 is not just important for 2001.
578:
537:
462:, we only wikilink the first year and not all subsequent entries for the same year.
392:
2499:
2462:
2391:
2099:
2050:
2018:
1988:
1981:
1977:
1962:
1765:
1749:
1734:
1655:
1635:
1344:
1315:
1267:
1194:
1164:
799:
490:
2673:
2609:
2527:
2338:
2303:
2188:
2159:
2070:
2054:
2025:
1973:
1923:
1904:
1845:
1817:
1745:
1698:
1630:
Sounds like you're leaning no exceptions other than calendar related info (e.g.
1590:
1552:
1509:
1391:
1348:
1302:
1271:
1224:
1178:
1107:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2762:
2650:
2581:
2433:
2422:
2365:
2262:
2132:
2003:
1883:
1611:
1563:
1456:
1408:
1378:
1246:
1151:
1060:
1041:
1012:
871:
829:
779:
710:
663:
566:
555:
533:
502:
438:
399:
297:
272:
206:
168:
112:
679:
all 365 days? We have 12 months and as many members who manage the page. --
2394:--as shorthand. Bonus silly points for replacing an unambiguous hat note on
2299:
1969:
1741:
1689:
1643:
1631:
1556:
1306:
137:
133:
2329:
So. What happens now? Do we go ahead and implement our agreement. Agreed:
1697:
events had a grave effect on the country involved and possibly the world
2110:
to find a different article. I dare say that no one is going to type in
1310:
736:
559:
739:
indicates that Catherine II of Russia was born, but reading the article
416:
There a discussion underway about the fate of individual date articles (
319:
2387:
1941:
Exclude everything from the intro except calendar specific information
1772:
1650:
or be in an intro or be omitted completely? Are there any examples of
1639:
1298:
1033:'s point above? Should we remove the links from the years such as (d.
260:
229:
2218:
2095:
Unless you plan to mount a campaign to go out and add every possible
1872:
1753:
1452:
494:
about links in the same section. I think current practice is good.
2390:, not mention that these are days which are being widely used--like
966:
were switching calendars frome one entry to the next (or are we)? --
2069:. These events also received massive attention when they happened.
2471:
Why create a DAB page for a single entry? We could take these to
2421:
2395:
2383:
1294:
752:
517:, not a day page - I'm not sure that was clear from the question.
1034:
514:
450:
Wikilinks to 2nd, 3rd, etc., entries? Or just wikilink the 1st?
1980:). In cases in which other articles need disambiguation (e.g.
1301:(secular, nearly worldwide holiday)? If so, why not introduce
2217:
I think using a disambig example other than 9/11 might help.
1922:
So what is the final decision after all of this discussion???
1752:), or days for which other articles need disambiguation (e.g.
1455:
to the US holiday qualify (seems a little US-centirc to me)?
25:
895:
only, not for dates in the event text. I think we should.
2461:
For "Quatorze Juillet" (Fourteenth of July in French), see
1958:
The introduction for date pages should consist only of the
1950:. With that said, there should be no effort to go out and
1730:
The introduction for date pages should consist only of the
1688:
is probably celebrated in more places in the world than is
1771:
links for widely recognized holidays (not events) such as
1173:
anyway. The intro seems OK at the moment for this article.
2608:
I don't think that CW's actions are civil all the time.
391:
But it is important to note that until the guideline at
2716:
2712:
2707:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2114:
with a reasonable expectation that they will end up at
1219:
Enkutatash or New Year's Day in the Ethiopian calendar.
1127:
The March articles have been nominated for deletion. -
513:
BTW, this came out of a comment I made to Arthur about
395:
is approved, widespread use might be frowned upon. --
144:. Is it desired that a year is displayed in the header?
1994:
template may be used as the first line of the article.
747:) date on which she was born, and that her new style (
485:
I think the last discussion on this topic took place
985:Edit Conflict: My response still applies, I think.
1723:We're really talking about adding a new bullet at
1104:WT:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death
751:) date of birth is actually May 2. Accordingly,
2735:random-event-which-is-important-to-me-personally
2695:('political bias'?!?) assumptions of bad faith,
1095:RfC now open on linking dates of birth and death
464:Knowledge:Overlink crisis#Aspects of overlinking
1374:have country specific dates" in the intro? --
2713:how dates are given outside the United States
8:
2672:OK. I am more than happy to discuss things.
1725:Knowledge:WikiProject Days of the year#Style
1037:)? I'm in favor of removing the links. --
466:seems to support our practice, as does the
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Days of the year
941:I'm not sure I understand the problem. ā
1816:it is simpler to leave the intros blank.
1589:other only occurs once every four years.
1727:(right?). Sounds like you're thinking:
1163:Agreed. The best example of this is the
536:, which, er, uses two different styles.
327:. Thank you for your understanding. ~~~~
2125:natural title for more than one article
1122:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/March 1
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2737:on the rationale of 'consistency'. --
1684:Best to leave them out. For example,
743:suggests that this is the old style (
7:
2452:For the labor-related holiday, see
2014:OK. I guess there will be a lot of
456:Knowledge:Timeline standards#Events
24:
521:also says (in the date section):
2332:1) We clear out all the intros.
318:
29:
1447:link? Perhaps something like "
841:Fictional Events and personages
2715:or edit-wars based on his own
2552:Wallie. Please remember that
1862:I like anything that requires
1116:11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1048:00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1019:17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
976:17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
949:15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
637:New Carriage invented by Mr. J
631:Lady B discovered a new planet
498:doesn't apply to WP:DAYS. --
103:The calendar on the date pages
1:
2769:18:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2747:16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
2682:17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
2657:15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
2618:17:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2588:14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2536:12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2514:00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2440:00:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2416:23:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
2406:) with only one (1) entry. --
2372:18:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
2347:14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2312:14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2269:13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2233:13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2197:11:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2168:21:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2139:20:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2079:19:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2034:18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2010:14:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1932:09:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1913:16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1890:15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1854:09:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1826:08:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1795:23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1707:19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1670:19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1618:18:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1599:17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1570:16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1518:16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1475:05:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1415:22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1400:21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1385:20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1357:20:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1330:20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1280:19:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1253:19:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1233:17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1187:17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1158:16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1137:04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
933:20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
917:16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
731:Old Style and New Style dates
279:17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
242:16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
211:15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
192:15:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
173:13:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
159:12:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
119:21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
2402:with an ambiguous dab page (
1903:other country in the world?
1085:20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1067:20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
1029:What are the feelings about
346:Have a look at my templates:
812:22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
634:Country A invaded Country R
532:says to see the example at
2784:
2460:
2454:International Workers' Day
2451:
2400:International Workers' Day
878:20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
856:20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
836:18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
786:14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
766:14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
717:19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
689:19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
670:15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
653:15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
587:23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
573:23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
546:22:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
509:22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
480:22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
445:21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
406:19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
341:19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
1658:that are problematic? --
304:20:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2731:July 14 (disambiguation)
887:revisions and year links
867:might gain support. --
127:User:HandigeHarry/Month3
124:User:HandigeHarry/Month3
1864:"virtually no judgment"
865:November 5th in Fiction
331:Any thoughts? Regards,
2426:
1102:An RfC is now open at
741:Catherine II of Russia
412:Interesting discussion
386:User:Mufka/uw-fiction1
2727:May 1 (disambiguation
2425:
2404:May 1 (disambiguation
2361:is a good start. --
905:the depreciation in
496:WP:Timeline standards
429:ThisDateInRecentYears
232:etc. without a year.
42:of past discussions.
2554:consensus can change
2355:"trimming intro per
1646:. Should these use
963:Battle of Tippermuir
530:Knowledge:DAYS#Style
374:User:Mufka/uw-vdate1
2221:is a song name. --
2116:Hindenburg disaster
2059:Hindenburg disaster
1777:Saint Patrick's Day
368:User:Mufka/uw-days2
362:User:Mufka/uw-days1
356:User:Mufka/uw-date2
350:User:Mufka/uw-date1
289:Just a project page
2717:factual inaccuracy
2427:
2067:Invasion of Poland
2049:asked people what
2512:
2231:
2063:Hiroshima bombing
1793:
1668:
1559:. Thoughts? --
1473:
1328:
1297:be introduced as
1167:page (see below).
556:December 7#Deaths
534:December 7#Deaths
380:User:Mufka/uw-fd1
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2775:
2761:
2697:personal attacks
2649:
2580:
2506:
2488:
2482:
2432:
2364:
2261:
2225:
2131:
2104:
2098:
2023:
2017:
2002:
1993:
1987:
1967:
1961:
1882:
1879:be allowed. --
1787:
1770:
1764:
1739:
1733:
1686:St Patrick's Day
1662:
1610:
1562:
1467:
1407:
1377:
1322:
1245:
1193:Copied from the
1150:
1059:
1040:
1011:
870:
828:
778:
709:
662:
565:
501:
460:Days of the year
437:
433:
427:
398:
322:
296:
271:
266:December 5, 2008
111:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2783:
2782:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2759:
2755:
2739:CalendarWatcher
2647:
2578:
2486:
2480:
2466:
2457:
2430:
2408:CalendarWatcher
2380:
2362:
2259:
2129:
2102:
2096:
2021:
2015:
2000:
1991:
1985:
1965:
1959:
1880:
1779:, and arguably
1768:
1762:
1737:
1731:
1608:
1560:
1405:
1375:
1243:
1148:
1144:
1125:
1097:
1057:
1038:
1009:
889:
868:
843:
826:
822:
776:
734:
707:
660:
599:
563:
499:
468:Manual of Style
452:
435:
431:
425:
418:January 1, 2003
414:
396:
311:
294:
291:
269:
142:January 5, 2008
109:
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2781:
2779:
2754:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2721:
2720:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2458:
2443:
2442:
2379:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2012:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1857:
1856:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1781:Fourth of July
1759:
1758:
1757:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1602:
1601:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1236:
1235:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1190:
1189:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1143:
1140:
1129:Richard Cavell
1124:
1119:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1051:
1050:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
954:
953:
952:
951:
936:
935:
888:
882:
881:
880:
842:
839:
821:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
789:
788:
733:
728:
726:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
694:
693:
692:
691:
673:
672:
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
632:
621:
620:
619:
618:
615:
608:
607:
606:
605:
598:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
511:
451:
448:
413:
410:
409:
408:
389:
388:
383:
382:
377:
376:
371:
370:
365:
364:
359:
358:
353:
352:
347:
329:
328:
310:
307:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
197:
196:
195:
194:
176:
175:
162:
161:
146:
145:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2780:
2771:
2770:
2767:
2765:
2763:
2752:
2748:
2744:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2723:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2709:
2706:
2702:
2698:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2679:
2675:
2658:
2655:
2653:
2651:
2645:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2589:
2586:
2584:
2582:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2559:
2555:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2515:
2510:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2485:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2464:
2459:
2455:
2450:
2449:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2441:
2438:
2436:
2434:
2424:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2385:
2377:
2373:
2370:
2368:
2366:
2360:
2358:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2333:
2330:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2270:
2267:
2265:
2263:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2140:
2137:
2135:
2133:
2127:
2126:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2101:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2020:
2013:
2011:
2008:
2006:
2004:
1998:
1990:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1964:
1957:
1956:
1953:
1949:
1944:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1884:
1878:
1874:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1796:
1791:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1767:
1760:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1736:
1729:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1695:
1694:Christmas Day
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1612:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1587:
1586:
1571:
1568:
1566:
1564:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1476:
1471:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1409:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1379:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1326:
1321:
1317:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1247:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1152:
1142:Introductions
1141:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1094:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1061:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1013:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
977:
973:
969:
964:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
950:
947:
944:
940:
939:
938:
937:
934:
930:
926:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
894:
886:
883:
879:
876:
874:
872:
866:
861:
860:
859:
857:
853:
849:
840:
838:
837:
834:
832:
830:
819:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
791:
790:
787:
784:
782:
780:
774:
770:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
732:
729:
727:
718:
715:
713:
711:
705:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
690:
686:
682:
681:TravelinSista
677:
676:
675:
674:
671:
668:
666:
664:
657:
656:
655:
654:
650:
646:
645:TravelinSista
636:
633:
630:
629:
627:
626:
625:
616:
613:
612:
610:
609:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:Format change
596:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
571:
569:
567:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
520:
516:
512:
510:
507:
505:
503:
497:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
449:
447:
446:
443:
441:
439:
430:
423:
419:
411:
407:
404:
402:
400:
394:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
348:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
326:
321:
317:
316:
315:
308:
306:
305:
302:
300:
298:
288:
280:
277:
275:
273:
267:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
243:
239:
235:
231:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
212:
209:
208:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
193:
189:
185:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
171:
170:
164:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
121:
120:
117:
115:
113:
108:the top. --
102:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2756:
2753:Commons link
2734:
2671:
2500:September 22
2463:Bastille Day
2392:September 11
2381:
2354:
2337:
2334:
2331:
2328:
2124:
2122:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2051:September 11
1982:September 11
1978:September 22
1951:
1942:
1921:
1876:
1867:
1863:
1838:
1750:September 22
1692:. Certainly
1656:September 11
1651:
1647:
1636:September 22
1460:
1448:
1444:
1345:September 11
1316:September 22
1268:September 11
1195:September 11
1165:September 11
1145:
1126:
1101:
1098:
1079:Arthur Rubin
1073:
1031:Arthur Rubin
984:
968:Gerry Ashton
943:Arthur Rubin
925:Gerry Ashton
911:Arthur Rubin
902:
898:
897:
892:
890:
864:
858:VBartilucci
844:
823:
804:Gerry Ashton
800:Gregory XIII
758:199.91.34.33
735:
725:
642:
622:
522:
491:World War II
459:
453:
415:
330:
312:
309:User warning
292:
234:HandigeHarry
205:
184:HandigeHarry
167:
151:HandigeHarry
122:
106:
78:
43:
37:
2055:December 25
1974:February 29
1746:February 29
1654:other than
1553:February 29
1463:links? --
1303:December 25
848:Vbartilucci
519:WP:OVERLINK
36:This is an
2701:rhetorical
2558:incivility
2504:Rick Block
2378:Agreement?
2223:Rick Block
2053:means and
1785:Rick Block
1660:Rick Block
1465:Rick Block
1457:October 31
1320:Rick Block
907:WP:MOSDATE
899:Separately
885:WP:MOSDATE
617:Mark Smith
95:ArchiveĀ 10
2689:immediate
2484:Db-author
2300:September
1970:January 1
1742:January 1
1690:Halloween
1644:Halloween
1632:January 1
1557:January 1
1307:Christmas
1197:articleĀ :
893:year tags
820:January 1
749:Gregorian
472:Art Smart
333:Accurizer
138:January 5
134:January 1
132:The page
90:ArchiveĀ 9
85:ArchiveĀ 8
79:ArchiveĀ 7
73:ArchiveĀ 6
68:ArchiveĀ 5
60:ArchiveĀ 1
2708:fallacie
2118:. From
2065:and the
1877:wouldn't
1311:April 20
1213:America.
737:April 21
614:John Doe
579:Bazzargh
560:May 2008
538:Bazzargh
420:, etc.)
2705:factual
2693:bizarre
2388:July 14
2357:WP:DAYS
2108:expects
1773:May Day
1640:May Day
1299:May Day
903:clarify
796:WP:DAYS
773:WP:DAYS
325:sandbox
261:January
230:March 1
140:not to
39:archive
2674:Wallie
2646:. --
2644:WP:RFC
2610:Wallie
2528:Wallie
2502:)? --
2477:WP:AFD
2473:WP:MFD
2339:Wallie
2304:Wallie
2219:July 1
2189:Wallie
2160:Wallie
2120:WP:DAB
2071:Wallie
2061:, the
2026:Wallie
1984:) the
1948:WP:DAB
1924:Wallie
1905:Wallie
1873:July 1
1846:Wallie
1818:Wallie
1754:July 1
1699:Wallie
1652:events
1591:Wallie
1510:Wallie
1453:July 4
1392:Wallie
1349:Wallie
1318:. --
1272:Wallie
1225:Wallie
1179:Wallie
1108:Jheald
1082:(talk)
946:(talk)
914:(talk)
775:. --
745:Julian
611:May 2
434:. --
393:WP:DOY
2760:Mufka
2648:Mufka
2579:Mufka
2431:Mufka
2396:May 1
2384:May 1
2363:Mufka
2260:Mufka
2130:Mufka
2112:May 6
2001:Mufka
1976:, or
1881:Mufka
1783:. --
1748:, or
1609:Mufka
1561:Mufka
1406:Mufka
1376:Mufka
1295:May 1
1244:Mufka
1149:Mufka
1074:could
1058:Mufka
1039:Mufka
1010:Mufka
909:. ā
869:Mufka
827:Mufka
777:Mufka
753:May 2
708:Mufka
661:Mufka
628:1903
564:Mufka
500:Mufka
436:Mufka
397:Mufka
295:Mufka
270:Mufka
268:) --
207:Grouf
169:Grouf
110:Mufka
16:<
2743:talk
2703:and
2691:and
2678:talk
2614:talk
2532:talk
2509:talk
2475:(or
2412:talk
2398:for
2386:and
2343:talk
2308:talk
2228:talk
2193:talk
2164:talk
2075:talk
2030:talk
1952:find
1928:talk
1909:talk
1868:will
1850:talk
1822:talk
1790:talk
1703:talk
1665:talk
1595:talk
1555:and
1514:talk
1470:talk
1396:talk
1353:talk
1325:talk
1276:talk
1229:talk
1183:talk
1133:talk
1112:talk
1035:2008
972:talk
929:talk
852:talk
808:talk
762:talk
704:this
685:talk
649:talk
583:talk
552:this
542:talk
515:1976
487:here
476:talk
422:here
337:talk
238:talk
188:talk
155:talk
2729:or
2302:.
2100:for
2019:for
1999:--
1989:for
1963:Day
1943:but
1766:for
1735:Day
1648:for
1642:or
1634:or
1461:for
1449:For
1445:for
1305:as
1106:--
454:At
2745:)
2699:,
2680:)
2616:)
2534:)
2487:}}
2481:{{
2414:)
2345:)
2310:)
2195:)
2166:)
2103:}}
2097:{{
2077:)
2032:)
2022:}}
2016:{{
1992:}}
1986:{{
1972:,
1966:}}
1960:{{
1930:)
1911:)
1852:)
1824:)
1775:,
1769:}}
1763:{{
1756:).
1744:,
1738:}}
1732:{{
1705:)
1597:)
1516:)
1398:)
1355:)
1278:)
1231:)
1185:)
1135:)
1114:)
974:)
931:)
854:)
810:)
764:)
687:)
651:)
643:--
585:)
544:)
478:)
432:}}
426:{{
339:)
240:)
190:)
157:)
64:ā
2741:(
2719:.
2676:(
2612:(
2530:(
2511:)
2507:(
2489:.
2465:.
2456:.
2410:(
2359:"
2341:(
2306:(
2230:)
2226:(
2191:(
2162:(
2073:(
2028:(
1926:(
1907:(
1848:(
1820:(
1792:)
1788:(
1701:(
1667:)
1663:(
1593:(
1512:(
1472:)
1468:(
1394:(
1351:(
1327:)
1323:(
1274:(
1227:(
1181:(
1131:(
1110:(
970:(
927:(
850:(
806:(
760:(
683:(
647:(
581:(
540:(
474:(
335:(
236:(
186:(
153:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.