To report an error when this list is currently on the
Main Page, see
Main Page errors. Please remember that this list defers to the supporting articles, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
Before making a suggestion, please read the
selected anniversaries guidelines. Please remember that this list usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
Q1: Why is [Insert event here], an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed, not posted?
A1: Relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted. Any given day of the year can have a great many
important or significant historical events. The problem is that there is generally only room on the Main Page to list about 5 events at a time, so not everything can be posted.
As stated on
Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page, the items and events posted on the Main Page are chosen based more on how
well they are written, not based on how much important or significant their subjects are. It is easier for admins to select a well-written,
cited,
verifiable article over a poor one versus trying to determine objectively how much a subject is important or significant.
Keep in mind that the quality requirements only apply to the selected bolded article, not the other links. Thus, an event may qualify for multiple dates in a year if there is an article written in a
summary style and an article providing detailed content; if one of those pages have cleanup issues, the other page can be bolded as an alternate.
Another criterion is to maintain some variety of topics, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism, or the belief that the world stops at the edge of the
English-speaking world. Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure. In addition, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled
featured article or
featured picture.
Q2: There are way too many 20th-century events listed. Why aren't there more events from the 19th century and before?
Q3: This page seems to be biased toward events based in [Insert country or region here]. What can be done about it?
A3: This again is attributed to the
systemic bias of Wikipedia. Many users are generally more interested in working on good, well-written articles pertaining to their home country. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there will be more English-speaking users, and thus more articles pertaining to English-speaking countries. And if there are more users who are from the
United States, there will probably be more well-written articles about events based in the United States. Again, if you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q4: Why is the birthday/death anniversary of [Insert name here] not listed?
A4: There are only four slots available for birth and death anniversaries. As with the events, article quality and diversity in time period, geography, and reason for notability are all contributing factors in whether an article gets selected for inclusion.
Q5: Are the holidays/observances listed in any particular order?
A5: Yes, there is a specified order: International observances first, then alphabetically by where observed.
Q6: Some of the holidays/observances that are listed have dates in parentheses beside them. What do they mean?
A6: There are two reasons that some holidays/observances have dates next to them:
Non-
Gregorian-based holidays/observances are marked with the current year as a reminder to others that their dates do in fact vary from year to year.
National Days,
Independence Days, and other holidays celebrating the nationhood of a country are generally marked by the year of the significant historic date being observed.
Okay. But I'd mention the taxes first. --
PFHLai 01:19, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
I changed it again. The verb 'to protest' doesn't seem to fit a rebellion. BTW, where should the
apostrophe be ? --
PFHLai 01:24, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
Where you have it is fine. That's the place it is most commonly located. There was some debate by a Strunk & White fan on the Talk page that led to us dropping it altogether from the article's main title. I'll fix this entry to match the article title ("the Shays Rebellion").
Dunkelza 12:24 August 24, 2005 (EDT)
Need help moving the article ? --
PFHLai 18:42, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think we're best off leaving it as is, just for the sake of encyclopedic consistency. I appreciate the offer, though.
Dunkelza 17:30 August 25, 2005 (EDT)
You are welcome. :-) --
PFHLai 02:28, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Hurricane Katrina anniversary
This disaster should be on the MainPage, but I suggest a rewrite to focus on what happened on August 29th. The damages were done over a number of days. How about mentioning the hurricane making
landfall near
Buras-Triumph, Louisiana or the
levees getting breached in
New Orleans ? --
PFHLai 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Military-Heavy?
We have four military events: an invasion, a battle and two rebellions, and only one non-military event. While these are all certainly notable, couldn't we replace a couple of them with other events so as to avoid a heavy military focus? —
Cuiviénen 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I've replaced Shay's Rebellion with Michael Faraday's discovery of electromagnetic induction. Science rarely gets a spot in "On This Day", the discovery is very important to science, and it reduces the number of rebellions in this "On this Day" to one. —
Cuiviénen 01:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's military-heavy. I ain't happy with it, but Michael Faraday's discovery of electromagnetic induction cannot be used yet. That date is not confirmed and cannot be found in either article. --
PFHLai 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply
When the date of this discovery is confirmed and added to the relevant articles, please consider replacing the 1907 item with this. The collapse of the Quebec Bridge is not that significant. It's added there to "dilute the military-centrism" on the template for now. Thanks. --
PFHLai 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Quebec Bridge Text Change
I want to suggest a change to the second last point, the one about the Quebec bridge. It currently reads:
or something similar (without the bolding in the final, of course), to reflect the fact that the current bridge is not the same design as the one that collapsed.
The "Hong Kong" ceded in the Treaty of Nanking is Hong Kong Island, not the entire city we call Hong Kong today, need to change the link in the hypertext.
222.153.225.96 (
talk) 12:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)reply
On the same topic, I've put unequal treaty in quotes. On
Talk:Unequal treaty, people have repeatedly brought up issues relating to using that term with no qualifiers across various article. Basically, it's a loaded political term pertaining to Chinese nationalist or historical narratives. Now, the term unequal treaty is also used in an academic context, not just in a nationalistic sense, but even then it's often put in quotes, italics, prefixed with "so-called", or otherwise given some kind of proper context. So to comply with
WP:NPOV, we have a couple of options:
1/ Give it some kind of qualifier as I just mentioned. This is what I've done by adding quotes.
2/ Replace it with the more neutral term peace treaty. Only problem with this is it doesn't give the larger imperial context on the various treaties signed and/or imposed on China during this period.
So it's perfectly neutral to say China views a certain treaty as an unequal treaty, but then you'd have to sacrifice brevity in the entry. But at the very least, to use that term without any qualifiers or context as if it's a universally accepted matter-of-fact category of treaty definitely violates NPOV.
Spellcast (
talk) 13:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Louis II
Louis II was not killed by the Ottoman army. He fell into a river and drowned while trying to leave the battlefield.
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (
talk) 10:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Atahualpa, not the last emperor
Atahualpa was not the last emperor of the Incas as the Spanish established a series of puppet emperors prior to completing their conquest. The Incas would continue their imperial line until Tupac Amaru I. The appropiate thing to write would be that Atahualpa was the last Inca Emperor prior to the
Spanish conquest of Peru. Best regards.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 22:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Also note that an editor commented at
WP:ERRORS that Atahualpa died July 26, but was buried August 29. If this fact is used in 2012, this should be looked into; I'm not sure which is correct. --
Floquenbeam (
talk) 00:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Included:
Treaty of Picquigny (2nd appearance, last in 2013);
Hong Kong (6th appearance, last in 2013);
RDS-1 (2nd appearance, last in 2012);
Libero Grassi (2nd appearance, last in 2012);
Hurricane Katrina (5th appearance, last in 2010; 10th anniversary)