Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
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?
A2: The short, basic reason is the systemic bias of Wikipedia. There are not enough good, well-written articles on 19th-century and earlier events for all 365 days in the year. Currently, a majority of users seem to be generally more interested in writing articles about recent events. If you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
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 of [Insert name here] not listed?
A4: Births and deaths can only be used on centennials, etc. Exceptions can be made if they are directly related to assassinations, executions, natural disasters, civil accidents, genocide/extinction, or other historically significant topics that frequently appear on the Selected Anniversaries pages.
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. But this is a recent change (1 June 2011), so not every page has been updated to reflect this.
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.
Today's featured article for March 26, 2018 Today's featured picture for March 26, 2018
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 26, 2018


None selected. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines for help.


Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 25 * Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 27

Already Posted. -- PFHLai 19:23, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Not posted, 'coz both linked pages look stubby, and Polio makes no mention of the date. -- PFHLai 19:23, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Date still not mentioned on either pages. -- PFHLai 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on the date in Caxton's epilogue. See & Not in the main text of any wikiarticles yet. -- 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but until it is added to those articles, it cannot be mentioned here yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Act of Union

In light of this year's anniversary being a big deal, I had bumped it up from the commented-out section (I assume it had been up on a previous March 26.) Looking now, there's no cited basis for March 26, 1707, only the date it entered force, so I'll pull it back. The Tom 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Bangladesh Liberation war entry by YellowMonkey

YelloMonkey claims that the 1971 entry on Bangladesh Liberation War must go, since according to his claim, the article is unreferenced. However, the article is appropriately referenced. As a comparison, Biological_Weapons_Convention does not have ANY references at all. I checked out other entries in the article, and most of them are pathetically referenced, or not referenced at all.

I'd request other users to look into this, and would also request YellowMonkey not to keep removing the entry without discussing here. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some other examples:

If Yellowmonkey has a problem with the Bangladesh war article, he should first start by marking the particular locations there. Instead, he is removing the entry based on his subjective interpretation of references. As shown above, none of the other anniversary articles listed on MP are well referenced, and some are missing references completely. So, please apply the same standard to all articles and don't apply subjective judgement without discussion. --Ragib (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, contrary to YM's claim, the Bangladesh Liberation War article is well wikified. I assume he was referring to some other article? --Ragib (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey's disputing the POV issues with the article. —Dark 06:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is heavily sourced to involved parties, not independent sources, and is unwikified in heaps of places (Operation Searchlight)_and I don't buy WP:OTHERCRAP YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is indeed poorly and sparsely sourced with large sections of it with no references at all. Regardless of any other issues, I would say it's not of a high enough quality to be featured on the MP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finally clarifying which article you object to. From YM's ambiguous comments about unwikified content, it was not clear which article he was referring to. Since the entry was primarily on the start of BLW, the only conclusion I could draw was that YM was referring to the BLW article. It would have helped to clarify the issue if it were discussed here or at WP:ERRORS (Which YM did later).--Ragib (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
BLW is double dated and already went on MP three months ago, so it's double-dipping YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 16, 2005, March 26, 2007, December 16, 2007, March 26, 2008, March 26, 2009, and December 16, 2009. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of "any particular selected article should only be listed (be an emboldened entry) once in this queue" has always been that it refers to the calendar year from January 1 to December 31. Which means it officially hasn't double dipped in 2010, but unfortunately the ball was dropped in 2007 and 2009. But if you're interpretation is different, I will not edit war with you on this one. Just make sure you look at what image is currently being shown. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
So it doesn't get a go in Dec 2010? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The only other time BLW article can get to the OTD section of MP is December 16. If the norm is not to double dip, then perhaps it shouldn't be listed in the OTD section on Dec 16 this year. However, I do want to point out that December 16 is also the end of another related but different war, namely the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which started officially in early December and lasted for 10-13 days. (and the end is celebrated in India as Vijay Dibash and in Bangladesh as Victory Day (Bangladesh). Just because BLW was listed today, it shouldn't automatically preclude these other entries on the OTD section for Dec 16 (unless other important events fill out the section). --Ragib (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2012 notes

howcheng {chat} 07:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Jack Kevorkian added later for balance. howcheng {chat} 01:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2013 notes

howcheng {chat} 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

2014 notes

howcheng {chat} 06:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

2015 notes

howcheng {chat} 08:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

2016 notes

howcheng {chat} 06:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

2017 notes

howcheng {chat} 07:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 26"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA