267:, there is this statement: "Sigismund was crowned at Uppsala on 19 February 1594" which is cited to "Szujski, JĆ³zef (1894). DzieÅa JĆ³zefa Szujskiego. Dzieje Polski (in Polish). 3. KrakĆ³w: Szujski-Kluczycki. OCLC 717123162," p. 163. The Sigismund III article is a Featured Article so the source seems very likely to be accurate and appropriate, but I can neither acquire this book nor read it in Polish. Should I try to find another source for this fact & date? Or is the article still sourced well enough if I copy the Polish attribution? Thanks!
31:
482:- these both have an "Other" section. The title is very bland/generic, but that may suit the different sorts of subject matter currently in the article lead sections. Furthermore, this section could be used instead of hatnotes, although this would seem to be breaking with the overall style of Knowledge.
389:
Hi all, I'm proposing a change to the layout of the DOY pages - a new Notes section. The purpose is to move facts (some perhaps trivial) from the article lead to a separate section. I propose putting this under the existing
Holidays and obervances section. For examples of changes I have made, please
312:
Another point to note: you can try to reach out to another
Wikiproject that has the article in question inside its scope. A native speaker might be able to help you out. I have started a discussion in the Talk pages of two such articles yesterday and I'll be posting to the corresponding WP Talk page
173:
Yes, Willessee was a telegraphist as a very young man, before he went into politics. Then he gained leadership positions in his party and the parliament, and then became
Foreign Minister of Australia. We remember him for his political/government achievements, not for once having been a telegraphist.
262:
To make the question more concrete, on
February 19 there is this statement: "Having already been elected to the throne of the PolishāLithuanian Commonwealth in 1587, Sigismund III of the House of Vasa is crowned King of Sweden, having succeeded his father John III of Sweden in 1592." On the article
537:
lead). I could see it being useful if there were miscellaneous things about the date that aren't significant enough for the lead but don't fit into other categories, a scenario where some of your edits fall into. Regardless, if this were to become a section, the name would have to be changed from
211:
Yes, he was born in Egypt but in NO SENSE was he an "Egyptian-German politician". He was a German politician; I wouldn't even be happy with "Egyptian-born German politician", since his birth in Egypt was an accident of history that played no part in making him what he became. I've seen many, many
330:, I would not trust any source that you have not verified yourself. I've found mistakes in dates in featured articles before, and you should not assume that GA / FA reviewers have checked all the sources during the review process: I think that usually they only do a spot check.
177:
And yes, Frank
Serpico was in the army for a couple of years before entering the police force and going on to fame in that context, only. We don't know or care about his undistinguished army record, not in this project. That info belongs in his article, sure. But not here.
145:
I've come across a great many listings where the reason(s) for notability include things the person did in their early life, but which have absolutely zero to do with why we remember them now. Here are just a couple of examples from April 14:
520:
The typical lead is only one or two sentences, so there is room to include notable information about the date in the lead. We also want to include things in the lead that users may have been looking for by searching the date (e.g.
421:
I like what you're doing and thanks for starting this discussion. I think such a section would be useful, but I have concern about the title of the section. "Notes" has been used synonymously for "References" routinely. See
259:, and I have a question about how much checking is appropriate / necessary when adding sources. Is it assuming too much good faith if I cite something to a source used in another article that I can't personally check?
335:
On the other hand, if you're willing to stretch to the
Encyclopedia Britannica (which I found myself doing sadly often when sourcing DoY articles), my paper 1964 edition agrees with the Polish source you give above
291:. For now, I'm only adding those that I can personally verify or if the articles that I'm using to pull the sources are GA or FA. In the latter case, I'm relying on the diligence of the GA/FA review process.
595:
Your account of the interchange at that article and its talk page is not quite accurate. Consensus is on the talk page that the material belongs someplace else. Your focus is on "how" you can add it.
231:
426:
for an example. This is especially prevalent in older articles or articles written by academics. I'm wondering if a different term wouldn't be better. What do other folks think?
406:. I'll move whatever happens to be in the article lead, and leave it to others to judge whether the facts are actually meaningful or not, and whether to remove or edit them. Cheers,
72:
67:
59:
497:
47:
17:
442:
Yes, I agree with your concern about the term "Notes". A quick glance at the DOY articles for
January - April indicates a few different styles, e.g.
344:). Of course that requires you to AGF that I haven't just made that reference up, but I'm guessing the online version has the date as well. Best,
104:
This page is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the quality and integrity of date pages.
181:
So, without trawling through the archives, I have to ask whether this sort of thing is because of a consensus we've previously arrived at. --
582:
96:
This page is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.
565:
I tried to put some content about laws affecting a specific date which doesn't fit into the template, got reverted with a note (
362:
Thanks, all! This is helpful to know. I'll be thorough when adding sources and leave for later the really tricky ones.
611:
554:
511:
491:
437:
415:
376:
353:
322:
300:
281:
245:
220:
189:
134:
119:
38:
199:
While you're pondering that one above, what about the descriptions of our subjects' nationalities. From 26 April:
100:
I think we do a lot more than what that says. Unless anyone objects, I would like to change it to read
522:
551:
474:
which have sub-sections within their respective
References sections. I actually like the style of
487:
411:
349:
218:
187:
606:
578:
506:
432:
372:
318:
296:
277:
240:
114:
530:
573:. The template is clearly defective. I need guidance how I should put those content in. -
597:
570:
483:
407:
345:
264:
213:
182:
162:
130:
567:
These additions are not specific events, births or deaths that occurred on this date
601:
590:
574:
526:
501:
427:
363:
327:
314:
307:
292:
268:
235:
151:
109:
467:
288:
256:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
403:
399:
534:
423:
395:
391:
471:
451:
447:
443:
126:
479:
475:
463:
459:
455:
158:
and politician, 29th
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (d. 2003)
496:
Here is the structure that DOY articles are supposed to follow:
212:
similar examples in this project. They all need a rethink. --
25:
500:
Obviously you've found some exceptions that we need to fix.
287:
This is a question that I'm facing too, while adding refs to
251:
How much good faith to assume for sources in articles?
230:
For those that haven't seen it, please take a look at
92:
At the top of this page, there is a banner that says{
255:Hello! I thought I'd take a look at my birthday,
498:Knowledge:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template
102:
94:
8:
542:like other users have pointed out (perhaps
342:. Vol.Ā 20. Chicago: William Benton. p.Ā 639.
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Days of the year
561:Content which doesn't fit into sections
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
232:the article in this month's Signpost
195:Nationality and accidents of birth
24:
560:
550:, something along those lines). ~
466:. A couple of weird examples are
29:
598:You should listen to the answer
169:, police officer and lecturer.
1:
377:04:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
354:08:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
323:06:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
301:06:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
282:05:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
555:12:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
512:20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
492:08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
438:04:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
416:04:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
612:17:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
583:12:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
246:01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
221:02:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
628:
190:02:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
569:), and it eventually got
135:14:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
120:02:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
88:Proposed change to banner
340:Encyclopedia Britannica
125:I'd be fine with that.
544:Additional information
141:Reasons for notability
106:
98:
207:politician (d. 1987).
42:of past discussions.
523:September 11 attacks
203:1894 ā Rudolf Hess,
165:, American-Italian
226:Signpost interview
610:
510:
436:
385:New Notes section
369:
338:"Sigidmund III".
274:
244:
234:on this project.
118:
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
619:
604:
594:
531:January 6 attack
504:
430:
367:
366:
343:
311:
272:
271:
238:
216:
185:
112:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
627:
626:
622:
621:
620:
618:
617:
616:
588:
563:
390:have a look at
387:
364:
337:
305:
269:
253:
228:
214:
205:Egyptian-German
197:
183:
143:
90:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
625:
623:
615:
614:
600:about "if."
562:
559:
558:
557:
552:BappleBusiness
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
386:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
357:
356:
333:
331:
325:
303:
252:
249:
227:
224:
209:
208:
196:
193:
171:
170:
159:
142:
139:
138:
137:
89:
86:
83:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
624:
613:
608:
603:
599:
592:
587:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
556:
553:
549:
545:
541:
536:
532:
528:
524:
519:
513:
508:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
434:
429:
425:
420:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
384:
378:
374:
370:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
347:
341:
334:
332:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
309:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
266:
265:Sigismund III
260:
258:
250:
248:
247:
242:
237:
233:
225:
223:
222:
219:
217:
206:
202:
201:
200:
194:
192:
191:
188:
186:
179:
175:
168:
164:
163:Frank Serpico
160:
157:
154:, Australian
153:
149:
148:
147:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
122:
121:
116:
111:
105:
101:
97:
93:
87:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
566:
564:
547:
543:
539:
527:September 11
452:Bibliography
388:
339:
261:
254:
229:
210:
204:
198:
180:
176:
172:
166:
156:telegraphist
155:
152:Don Willesee
144:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
78:
43:
37:
468:February 21
289:February 29
257:February 19
108:Thoughts?
36:This is an
460:References
454:, whereas
448:References
404:January 20
400:January 14
215:Jack of Oz
184:Jack of Oz
79:ArchiveĀ 14
73:ArchiveĀ 13
68:ArchiveĀ 12
60:ArchiveĀ 10
535:January 6
446:has both
424:MOS:NOTES
396:January 6
392:January 3
571:WP:3RRed
484:Kiwipete
472:March 17
444:April 23
408:Kiwipete
346:Wham2001
602:Toddst1
591:Miklcct
575:Miklcct
533:in the
525:in the
502:Toddst1
480:April 6
476:April 5
464:Sources
456:March 9
428:Toddst1
328:LEvalyn
315:Ciridae
308:LEvalyn
293:Ciridae
236:Toddst1
167:soldier
161:1936 ā
150:1916 ā
110:Toddst1
39:archive
529:lead,
313:soon.
548:Other
540:Notes
16:<
607:talk
579:talk
507:talk
488:talk
478:and
470:and
462:and
458:has
450:and
433:talk
412:talk
402:and
373:talk
350:talk
319:talk
297:talk
278:talk
263:for
241:talk
131:talk
115:talk
546:or
365:~ L
270:~ L
127:Deb
581:)
490:)
414:)
398:,
394:,
375:)
368:šø
352:)
321:)
299:)
280:)
273:šø
133:)
64:ā
609:)
605:(
593::
589:@
577:(
509:)
505:(
486:(
435:)
431:(
410:(
371:(
348:(
336:(
317:(
310::
306:@
295:(
276:(
243:)
239:(
129:(
117:)
113:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.