🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries

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

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

Articles for improvement

[edit]
current suggestions (with relevant date)
Please list articles here that need improvement before listing at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries.
Anyone may list an article, preferably discussing on the talk page (or here briefly) why it fails Selected_anniversaries_criteria.

Ikhouvanjou14 and balancing

[edit]

For the past several months, Ikhouvanjou14 has been swapping hooks for the OTD templates. They have done a great job finding new articles for OTD, especially in the births/deaths section. Unfortunately, I have had to move many of their selections to ineligible. Examples for upcoming OTDs are September 28, September 29, October 1, October 2, October 4, October 5, October 6, October 8, although I could link more examples of previous OTD dates. In the past, I have never had to change this many hooks on this many dates after another editor has swapped the hooks: usually, I think I have swapped a hook once every two-ish weeks for minor reasons, not because of an orange banner or too many uncited statements.

After I have checked the templates and selected new hooks to replace the ones moved to ineligible, Ikhouvanjou14 will go back and swap hooks again, often using a "balancing" or "fixed" edit summary with no other explanation. Ikhouvanjou14's edits are a very strict interpretation of the OTD guidelines by trying to include two births, two deaths in each template, as well as two women and two men. Their interpretation does not prioritise significant anniversaries or including pre-1900 dates if it breaks the 2 births/deaths and 2 men/women guideline, which does not follow the guideline priority established at the OTD guidelines. I cannot recall an instance where a hook I selected was moved by Ikhouvanjou14 to ineligible.

More importantly, Ikhouvanjou14 continually selects ineligible articles, which requires rechecks and increasing the work at OTD. When I recheck, sometimes I add more articles to "ineligible" that were selected by Ikhouvanjou14 and replace the hooks again (October 6, October 8), causing the "balancing" and rechecking process to repeat. I have started two threads on Ikhouvanjou14's talk page here and here, but I am still constantly moving their selected hooks to ineligible.

This desire for balancing was explained in this post and this post at WP:ERRORS; other editors expressed confusion or stated that their interpretation of balancing is not required. I think the consensus at ERRORS is that OTD should not follow Ikhouvanjou14's strict interpretation, but I wanted to bring this here for further discussion.

Some questions for the OTD page watchers:

  • Is my interpretation of what is ineligible for OTD too strict? Common reasons why I move articles to ineligible are orange or yellow banners, birth/death dates not cited in the article, and too much text is uncited.
  • Is Ikhouvanjou14's interpretation of OTD balancing too strict?
  • Should Ikhouvanjou14 be "balancing" or swapping OTD templates after another editor has checked the hooks, except in circumstances where hooks are ineligible? Would it be more appropriate to open a discussion on the OTD talk page, expressing their preference on what hooks to swap after the template is checked?

Opinions are apprecitated. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm grateful to have Ikhouvanjou14 as an additional OTD volunteer. I am also concerned about their adding ineligible articles and prioritizing their interpretation of balance over other matters. Based on the examples I checked, I think Z's interpretation of ineligibility is exactly correct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also grateful to have Ikhouvanjou14 as an additional OTD volunteer, and discussed (see talk) that I think that a strict balance of births and deaths and of women and men are not needed, and my wish for a 90th birthday was respected. Selection criteria should rather be:
    1. interesting facts
    2. article quality
    3. balance of topics within a set
    4. balance of topics overall
    5. round anniversaries.
    For me, they come in that order. We have too many desasters and wars, overall, and I try to counter by musical performances, and many others should try their fields of knowledge. Yesterday I had the idea to enter Les pêcheurs de perles, premiered on 30 September 1863. It's a featured article, and great music (heard in 2025). However, the set had already Mozart's The Magic Flute and a New York theatre in recent years, so perhaps enough culture for the day. Why the theatre, a 2000 event, appeared pictured last year and not now for a quarter-century, remains a mystery to me. I guess the Pecheurs might come in 2028. Or any other year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to chime in to this discussion, I think it's really important that there is a gender balance to be honest Lajmmoore (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lajmmoore: Right now, OTD prioritises significant anniversaries, variety of years, geographic location, and subject notability variety first. Afterwards, gender variety, significance, when the bolded article ran at OTD, and avoiding repeating similar topics too close together are considered. I think gender balance should be the second group of consideration because balancing too many considerations takes up too much editor time that could be spent improving the encyclopedia. Z1720 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I just wanted to say that I also welcome Ikhouvanjou14's contribution to the OTD, and I do agree that events should not be posted representing a certain date twice in a row unless there is no more eligible dates to be filled out. However, I would like to point out that they don't check to see if the events are also the subject of either the Featured Article, the Featured Picture, or (in Fridays' cases) the Featured List of the day. I noticed that Firefangledfeathers had to swap out the Japanese surrender ending WWII in 1945 for September 2 because the picture of the day was the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Also Z1720 had to remove Angela Lansbury from the birthday hooks for October 16 since she was the subject of the Featured Article for that day. I just wish that Ikhouvanjou14 would check to make sure that the hooks aren't the subject of the Featured Article, Featured Picture, or Featured List in order to maintain a variety of topics. Birdienest81talk 11:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhouvanjou14, a second ping to this discussion. We're discussing both our balancing priorities and our need for care and accuracy. So far, I'm not seeing support for your prioritizing of two births and two deaths. Please build the case for it here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I swapped the hooks for Nov 6 here. I few hours later, Ikhouvanjou14 changed many articles to their preference without moving any of the articles I selected to ineligible here. Their edit summary explanation was that some of the articles were featured in 2023, so they were swapped with articles that hadn't appeared yet. However, some of the articles that they added to the template are ineligible (James Naismith, Pope John XVII) or I was reserving them for a 2026 run (Raqqa campaign (2016–2017)'s 10 year anniversary) while some of the articles that Ik14 removed were placed there due to a semi-significant anniversary (Stanisław Staszic for 1755, James Bowdoin for 1790). I reverted Ik14's edits as it would have been very time-consuming to parse through every suggestion.
  • I am constantly wasting my time moving Ik14's article suggestions to ineligible, which is time I could use to improve the encyclopedia instead. If Ik14 was new to OTD I would have a lot more grace, but this has been going on for several months with no improvement. I think a topic ban from swapping OTD hooks is appropriate: this would allow Ik14 to suggest articles in the eligible section, but not cause additional work for other editors. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Build a case? Well unless anyone would like all deaths or births, because it is my personal preference, I would rather have articles from year prior still there for the sake of it. I only put OTD from two years prior only if there is no other way, prioritizing 3 years or beyond, or those never before. Z1720, please add note instead of just reverting everything. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinessa Vidotto on Nov 3

[edit]

With this edit, I removed Vinessa Vidotto from Nov 3. It was returned by @Ikhouvanjou14: in this edit. I don't think article should be eligible for OTD yet because Vidotto is not moderately or significantly notable: she is an American actress that stars in a TV show, but she has not received any awards or significant notable recognition. I feel that, with the large amount of American actors at OTD, this article should not be used in a template yet.

I am posting here because this page gets more editor attention, so hopefully will get more responses. My question: should this article (and articles of similar notability) be eligible to run on an OTD? Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts:
  1. Trivially, Vinessa Vidotto is ineligible because she is not listed on November 3
  2. More importantly, Vidotto is ineligible because her birth date is not supported by an inline citation in her article.
  3. "fix" is not an appropriate edit summary for a change that partially reverts another editor's good-faith work.
  4. I don't see that we have a "moderate or significantly notable" criterion for births/deaths, and I'm not sure I'd support adding one. If I've missed a part of the criteria, I'd appreciate a point in the right direction.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Firefangledfeathers: Regarding number 1: Lots of articles are featured on OTD that aren't on the date pages because the date page is not always updated, and swappers use many tools to find new entries. Updating the date page every time we wanted to include an article at OTD would be adding a layer of bureaucracy to the process, imo.
  • Regarding number 4: the OTD criteria was written before births/deaths were in the templates and not really updated since the inclusion. I have interpreted, "The event needs to be of moderate to great historical significance (relative to the other historical events that occurred on the same day of the year)" (WP:OTDRULES #1) to also apply to births/deaths. This is why I avoided adding, for example, Kentucky governors, Alberta premiers, or Olympic athletes whose only notable accomplishment is competing in the Olympics once. I would support including a "moderate or significantly notable" parameter for birth/deaths as OTD has limited space in the template and I think the Main Page should highlight more important biographies over those with minor notability. Z1720 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For #1, we do currently require that birth/deaths be included in the day article. WP:OTDRULES #5.1. I'd prefer not to be in a place of just ignoring that, but I agree that reducing complexity is good. I'd suggest removing that part of the guidance. For similar reasons, I oppose (very mildly) adding a stricter notability criterion for births/deaths. I'm a bit shy from watching the ITN wars continuing over subjective criteria, and I'd love to not see us get bogged down with notability debates. Maybe a problem for a later time, where we have a deeper bench of volunteers? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Firefangledfeathers: OTD #1 already mentions that articles at OTD must comply with criteria for inclusion at WP:BIRTHDOY. I do not think OTD editors should be required to update the date articles, but BIRTHDOY's explains that bios must have achieved something exceptional or prominent in their field to be included. My interpretation is that OTD currently follows this same criteria and Vinessa Vidotto is not prominent in her field, and thus she cannot be included in OTD even if her article fulfilled that criteria. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point! I support removing Vidotto. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing Vinessa Vidotto from OTD. More generally: I suggest that if we have not required yet that an article is on the day and year list we should do so. (I thought we did.) It's there that sourcing and quality control happen. I'd also hope for more transparency in edit summaries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 10 b/d

[edit]

Ikhouvanjou14 added Ricki-Lee Coulter to the 2025 set here. A couple of days later, they wanted to "balance" the set after I made changes. The most recent change is to add Mary Millar to the set three times here, here and here, twice after I removed her from the set. The OTD guidelines say to "Give precedence to significant anniversaries (multiples of 100 get the top priority, followed by multiples of 50, while 25 and 10 can be considered equal)". Coulter is celebrating her 40th birthday, there are no other singers in that prep set, and a death is already in the set. I don't want to remove Millar a third time because this is approaching an edit war.

Question for the group: should Coulter be used in this prep set? Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am no friend of Coulter on a 40th anniversary, nor Millar on some "not round" anniversary who would be better next year on a 90th anniversary of birth. I don't want to edit the article. We could look around for alternatives. Ikhouvanjou14, please begin to discuss (here!) instead of any reverts back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Millar was last on OTD in 2019, Coulter was last on OTD in 2023. Thus, I think she deserved a comeback after six years. I put Coulter back because I forgot that he was OTD in 2023, and I thought Gaiman's 65th birthday is not really suiting the "multiples of 100 get the top priority, followed by multiples of 50, while 25 and 10 can be considered equal". Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. I would prefer Millar next year, as explained. We want a woman in this year's set. The first I came across is Erika Komonyi, b. 1965, Ukrainian-American artist. Better someone new than someone returning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about Vanessa Ferrari, b. 1990, and having competed in gymnastics at four Olympics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or Barbara Schmid-Federer, b. 1965, President of Swiss Red Cross?
Or Halina Reijn, b. 1975, big in Dutch film in different fields? I'd go for her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: Komonyi is tricky because the article is less than 1500K and less than 300 words, so some editors might consider this a stub. The rest seem fine to me. My preference would be Reijn because of the 50th anniversary. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Death anniversary would be better. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Why do your believe that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Balance. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been asked a few times why you pursue a "balance" of deaths and births. I don't know of any requirement to go for that. Even if there was one, I'd make an exception for a nice 50th anniversary of an instrumental woman who has not yet been featured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of philosophical, yin-yang thing. Births and deaths. Not a must, though. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly added Halina Reijn to the Nov 10 set, as it is a significant anniversary and never been featured before. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ikhouvanjou14: With this edit you moved Władysław Umiński, an article that has never run at OTD, for Henry Wirz, which last ran on Nov. 10. This confused me because above you mentioned that you moved Coulter out of the set because she was featured in 2023. This causes me to conclude that you are prioritising having 2 births and 2 deaths in each set over other priorities, like giving precedence for significant anniversaries and the last time the article ran at OTD. Is my conclusion correct? If not, what was the reason for making this switch? Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I asked. Last ran on when? His hanging appeared as blurb in '23, this time appeared in D. But I am cool with 3Bs. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ikhouvanjou14: But if you are OK with 3 births, why did you make this switch in the first place? What reason did you have to swap these two articles? Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just trying, maybe it would be allowed. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ikhouvanjou14: Every time you make a template change, another editor has to check to make sure the template is ready to run on the Main Page. This takes away editor time that could be used to improve Wikipedia articles. "Just trying" is not a good enough reason to make a change that someone else has set. I have reverted this change. If you would like a different article to run, please suggest it below so it can be discussed. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC) I see that you have already made the revert. Thank you for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 10th OTD set

[edit]

I posted at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/November 10 asking some questions about the present November 10th OTD set but haven't gotten responses. Would appreciate it if interested editors would take a look at the present set as of today, November 6th.
There are a couple of issues with the present set:

  • The genre of all 5 articles has to do with war/battles.
  • 3 of the 5 took place in the mid-to late 20th Century.
  • 2 of the 5 have already appeared in OTD 8 times - Siege of Zara & Battle of Surabaya.

Yes, I am interested in Wilmington massacre. I have been working on this article since June of this year to get it out of its previous ineligibility (page numbers needed) and also edited the article for its present deemed ineligibility issues (too much quoted material). This article hasn't appeared in OTD since 2018. I think it would be appropriate for it to have another turn at OTD. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to discuss here, because very few editors will have the individual page on their watchlist. I am with you for Wilmington massacre, and think you could even boldly move it to eligible, and to the position to be featured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we feature FA SS Edmund Fitzgerald, 50 years after the wreck. TFA missed that chance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the latest iteration of the November 10th OTD set. The Fitzgerald's banner just kind of struck me...maybe as being such a symbol of the ship and of the song. I'd never noticed it before. The photo that is in the Fitzgerald article is right now basically slated for deletion at Commons, see the original file at Commons. - Shearonink (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not erase a perfectly fine blurb. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any "blurb-erasing" that I might have done was inadvertent, sometime people do make mistakes. I suggest one can first assume good-faith, so I assume the removal of the Wilmington massacre image from the staging area was also inadvertent & have restored it there - that area can hold multiple images for multiple blurbs & they can all wait for possible future use. - Shearonink (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are we regarding the Wilmington massacre? Any objections? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe more about that this year is the 127th anniversary, I have a slight objection. I am slightly leaning towards "Surabaya" one more time, then we ban it for five years. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we serve our readers better by a new 127th than any repeat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you wish. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think most readers notice when OTD repeats from two years ago or further back. I think readers notice when the year is a round anniversary (digit ending in a 0 or 5) which is why I prefer them. The article does have some uncited paragraphs (not enough for me to think it's ineligible, but others might quibble). The article is over 10,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends reducing the word count: editors sometimes add a "too long" banner after 10,000 words, and banners make articles ineligible. Overall, I'm fine with running Wilmington if others want, or it can be improved upon and run in 2026. Z1720 (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I slightly prefer Surabaya despite it being OTD in 2020, 2022, and 2023. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's also continue to keep in mind the mix of "genres"... Regarding TOOBIG, the Wilmington massacre article was 142 words over 10,000. It is now under 10,000. Some of the unreferenced paragraphs have been trimmed, a ref or two has been added - there might be a few unreferenced paragraphs remaining. Of course, I confess, I am biased towards this article. I have been working to improve it for quite a while. I think it should be included this year. It hasn't been in OTD for 7 years, and it is history that resonates in the United States today, along with the Tulsa race massacre and other race massacres. - Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shearonink: WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting the article at over 8,000 words: my page size script identifies just under 10,000 words as well, but mine doesn't count block quotes. There are lots of events that resonate with different groups of people at OTD: per the OTD guidelines editors are not to consider the significance of events when deciding which ones to add to the set. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720: This editing guideline states "9,000 words...Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material" but also "exceptions may apply". I had thought, as a B-Class article, that Wilmington massacre was fine to go. The criteria/OTDRULES also state "The event needs to be of moderate to great historical significance" as well as a mix of topics, years, and geographical areas. But whatever the consensus around here is, is fine. I've said my piece and that's that. - Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shearonink: An article rating does not guarantee that an article is eligible. The article length means another editor could add an orange "very long" banner, causing the article to become ineligible. No, the article's scope does not justify the added reading material. Z1720 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. In the end it didn't really matter. Wilmington massacre was removed from the Main Page November 10th 2025 OTD set for page spacing reasons. Siege of Zara did appear again. For the 9th time. The SS Edmund Fitzgerald had its 6th appearance, but it was also that event's 50th anniversary. The Ken Saro-Wiwa article had its 7th appearance. The Wilmington massacre article has appeared twice in OTD - in 2011 and in 2018. - Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Hampton

[edit]

@Ikhouvanjou14: readded Hannah Hampton with the note "She already won numerous club titles with Chelsea and two European Championships with England (the last 2), notable enough for me." I don't think this reaches the eligibility requirements of WP:BIRTHDOY which states: "sports figures should only be included if they are noteworthy by having accomplished something exceptional in their sport such as breaking a world record, winning multiple Olympic gold medals or taking part in multiple international events". I want to get other editor opinions (which will help with future sets, too): has this reached the threshold for inclusion at OTD? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She won the Women's Euro in 2022 and 2025 and runner-up of the 2023 Women's World Cup. Three international tournaments there. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that definition at BIRTHDOY does seem to effectively pose a large bar to players from team sports, doesn't it? I think Hampton is OK here, though. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Black Kite: I agree, but it might be because there is a large number of sports biographies and limited space to feature biographies on OTD, so OTD wanted to limit which sports players were eligible. Whether this is the appropriate limit I think should be a separate discussion in another thread. Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 21

[edit]

In the Nov 21 OTD page, Ikhouvanjou14 performed the initial swaps for this set. A couple days later, I checked the hooks in the set and put two in "ineligible, placing two new hooks in the set.

Afterwards, Ikhouvanjou14 swapped out Stan Musial for Leopold Berchtold, with an edit summary of "balancing". When I reverted the edit, Ikhouvanjou14 swapped out Stan Musial for James Hogg, with an edit summary of "fix".

Everytime Ikhouvanjou14 switches out articles, another editor has to recheck to ensure that they are eligible to run, which takes up editor time that could be used to improve the encyclopedia. Ikhouvanjou14 is not moving Stan Musial to ineligible, so I am unsure why these switches are necessary.

@Ikhouvanjou14: Can you explain what you are "balancing" or "fixing" in this set with these edits? Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hogg is neither ineligible nor used last year. You said about "significant anniversary takes precedence", fine. But you are insisting on someone's 105th birthday rather than Hogg's 190th death anniversary. "For events 100 years old and up, that means multiples of 25 (e.g., 200th, 325th, 550th, etc.). If the event is less than 100 years old, that means multiples of 10 or 25 (e.g., 30th, 60th, 75th)." Why are you insisting to that? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikhouvanjou14: Moving new articles into the set means that the new article has to be checked, which takes up editor time. Your explanation above Hogg has equal eligibility as Musial. What problem is adding Hogg to the set trying to solve? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiplies of 100, 50, 25, 10. You simply rejected it because "takes up editor's time" means takes up your time. I found no problems there, and Hogg's article has been in eligible for years, but was last featured in 2017. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ikhouvanjou14: Right now I am the editor doing most of the checks, but other editors can also complete the task. Berchtold does not have a multiple of 100, 50, 25 or 10 this year (death was 1942). Why did you want to replace Musial with Berchtold? Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I want to add James Hogg, who died 190 years ago this year and has been sitting pretty on eligible since 2018. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ikhouvanjou14: That doesn't answer my question. Why did you want to replace Musial with Berchtold? Was it to have an even number of births and deaths? Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. And I thought Hogg was unavailable. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ikhouvanjou14: There is no consensus at OTD to make it mandatory to have the same number of births and deaths in a set. If you would like this to be mandatory, please open a new proposal below. In the meantime, please do not swap hooks after they have been checked unless an article needs to go to ineligible: swapping hooks creates unnecessary work for other editors (like me) who check the hooks. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then check Hogg. Just because you did it does not mean it is perfect. James Hogg died 190 years ago this year and has been sitting pretty on eligible since 2018, and you still prefer Musial who was last featured in 2020 because it is convenient. All you see is my preference for balancing B-D. Yes, but in this case there are other legit reasons too. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikhouvanjou14: You have added James Hogg back to the set with this edit. There is no concensus above for this action. Please revert it. Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You dodged this question repeatedly, no wonder there has been no consensus. Answer that, will you? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 22nd - Anniversary of JFK's Death

[edit]

Today is November 22, 2025, the 63rd anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. How is it that Wikipedia does not have that listed in it "On This Day" section? At all? It should be front and center the absolute first thing you read! ~2025-35534-30 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many events that have taken place on each day of the year. Wikipedia highlights different events each year. The event's perceived importance by editors is not a factor in deciding which events to highlight. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries&oldid=1323735902"