Talk:Famous Birthdays

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 May 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

Moved from article - Famous Birthdays as a source

I don't think this belongs in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS - Why this site should not be used as a WP:RS [1]

@Ronz:That's apparent from your removal from the "See also" section. Please tell us your rationale - fiat is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never got the ping, sorry.

This is not encycopedic information about the company, but rather information for editors working on other articles. Have you ever seen such a thing in any article, let alone GA or close? I don't believe I have. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and it's contrary is neither a reason for inclusion or exclusion. You should know that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote, nor what I meant, nor do I see how that's a helpful response. I'm saying it's a NOT vio. This is feeling like IDHT.

Please make a case for inclusion. An example from a quality article or a similar discussion would be helpful if you simply have no policy-based case of your own. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case for inclusion was that it was there to alert editors to not use this as a source. The case for exclusion is WP:RONZDONTLIKEIT. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring my words and intent, and now are clearly trying to make this into a personal dispute while ignoring DR. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a valid reason for excluding it. Please start. Do you disagree that it shouldn't be used as a source? Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow DR. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer the question? That is part of DR. Let me be unambiguous about what question: Do you disagree that it shouldn't be used as a source? Toddst1 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen such a thing in any article, let alone GA or close? --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this should be excluded from the page as per WP:SELFREF. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" content seems like a perfectly valid editorial note for other Wikipedia editors—which is why it belongs on the talk page. I'm not sure why this is a matter for debate. Anirvan (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I think MOS:ALSO identifies that the See Also section only contains links to other articles. WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS is in administrative space, not an article space. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: It is correct that MOS:ALSO says the section is for internal links to mainspace articles only. Moreover, MOS:Internal links says: Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself. Disambiguation pages (which don't count as articles), and disambiguating hatnotes could also have links to the Wikipedia namespace, but nothing else in the mainspace should have a link to the Wikipedia namespace. It also breaks from encyclopedic tone to provide advice to editors in a mainspace article. And a Wikipedia consensus is not a reliable source, so I think this violates NPOV and OR for mainspace inclusion. So this is a no-go on several counts. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to cite Famous Birthday as an external link only? User:86.29.64.45 0:714, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly not for the same reasons as it fails as a reference. See WP:ELNO. Using it for this article under WP:ELOFFICIAL criteria is fine. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based in Los Angeles vs American

I think the more specific, "based in Los Angeles" is better being more specific. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but needs to reference the country ... such as my recent edit which you reverted without explaining why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:A519:3077:CDC:7420 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it safe to assume that "American" is completely redundant. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:A519:3077:CDC:7420 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting the Facts

The article states that the Famous Birthdays website was founded in 2012 by Evan Britton. This is absolutely not true. I created the website in 1996 and sold it to Mr. Britton in 2011. I would like to amend the "Background" section of the Wikipedia article to reflect that fact.

Here's my proof:

The Internet Archive has a copy of my site from December 12, 1998 -- fourteen years before it was supposedly founded.

The Internet Archive has many captures over the years, showing when I owned and maintained the site. The most interesting one is from January 3, 2012, after Mr. Britton took over the site. His headline at the top says "Over 20 Million Visitors Since 1996" which definitively proves that it wasn't created in 2012. The copyright notice at the bottom also refers to 1996.

It was named "Site of the Week" by the Detroit Free Press on February 4, 2001 -- eleven years before 2012.

It was also featured on the front page of our local newspaper on February 22, 2001.

All I want to do is revise the Wikipedia article to tell the truth. I've also contacted "The Atlantic" magazine to make a correction to their article. Here's my recommended revision of the "Background" section:

Background

Updated to its current form in 2012 by Evan Britton, who has since described the website as "Wikipedia for Generation Z",[1] Famous Birthdays originally focused on more traditional celebrities (such as actors, athletes, musicians, etc.), but has since expanded to also feature internet personalities.[3] This shift came after Britton discovered that visitors were searching for individuals unfamiliar to him; at first mistaking the traffic as spam, he realized that the searches were of people with online followings such as Cameron Dallas.[5]

The website was originally created by Ed Morykwas, a Michigan schoolteacher, in the early days of the World Wide Web. A version from December 12, 1998 can be seen at the Internet Archive [6]. It was chosen as the Detroit Free Press Site of the Week on February 4, 2001 [7]. It was also on the front page of Ed's hometown newspaper that same month [8]. He maintained the site for 15 years before selling it in 2011.

6. INTERNET ARCHIVE - SEARCH IT FOR THE WEBSITE URL (Apparently, I cannot mention an external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist, but it's easy to find.)

https://web.archive.org/

7. DETROIT FREE PRESS

https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-free-press-site-of-th/128501189/

8. TROY ECCENTRIC NEWSPAPER

https://riveroftime.net/troy-eccentric.jpg

Ed Morykwas (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest archived version is from December 12, 1998 and has a copyright notice by Ed Morykwas. It may be possible to whitelist that archive link. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 2601:40A:8002:5FF0:9824:9F6A:B49F:E37 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it again. Here's a link to the earliest archive of the Famous Birthdays website. It's from December 12, 1998 -- clearly proving that the site was NOT founded in 2012 as stated in the Wikipedia article:

https://web.archive.org/web/19981212024850/http://www.famou$birthdays.com/

And here is an archive from January 3, 2012, AFTER Evan Britton took control of the site and posted this welcome page. It boldly proclaims "Over 20 Million Visitors Since 1996" -- direct evidence in Evan's very own words. How could the site have had ALL those visitors if he just founded it in 2012, as he claimed?

https://web.archive.org/web/20120103205911/http://www.famou$birthdays.com/welcome.html

(In order to see those pages, just turn each $ into the letter s.) Ed Morykwas (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to get some credit where credit is due. I conceived of the idea, I designed the website, I maintained it, nurtured it, developed it, made it a success. It's not right for Evan Britton to simply erase me. I'm not taking anything away from him -- he's done a fabulous job -- but he should acknowledge that I built the foundation of Famous Birthdays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morykwas (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your decision? Can I go ahead and edit the Wikipedia entry?

I appreciate that the editors are very busy, and that this article is rated as low-importance. However, I would still love to receive some guidance! I personally created the Famous Birthdays website in the early days of the "Information Superhighway" as a way to share interesting information in an entertaining way. That's a provable fact -- you can easily see it's true by checking the Internet Archive. My name is on there, beginning in 1998 (not 2012). Ed Morykwas (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/19981212024850/http://www.famousbirthdays.com/ Ed Morykwas (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest here. Please use edit requests in the future. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that "edit requests" are available. Is my edit okay, or should I do that process now? (I'm happy to comply with all Wikipedia requirements.) 2601:40A:8002:5FF0:4097:5974:D331:9CE4 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a conflict of interest notice on your talk page that gives guidance on managing the situation, including the use of edit requests.

The expansion of the article needs further work. The three new references should be used for verification of information about Famous Birthdays, which the last two of the three are not doing.

It could also use a reference verifying the purchase, so that could be properly mentioned. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal and @Anachronist Thanks for your guidance. I find this entire process very fascinating.

The purpose of my paragraph was to prove these two facts: (1) the Famous Birthdays website existed long before 2012, and (2) I'm the one who created it. The link to the Internet Archive shows the earliest recorded version of the site -- including my name -- so it's a strong piece of evidence that truly belongs in the Wikipedia entry.

The additional references to the Detroit Free Press, the Troy Eccentric newspaper, and the Washington Post are further proof from authoritative sources that I'm the original creator of Famous Birthdays. The current owner would like to erase me from Internet history, but I deserve credit for what I built in the early days of the World Wide Web. Ed Morykwas (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Free Press article verifies the 1996 date with the name Edward. The Troy Eccentric doesn't add much. The Washington Post piece is fluff. --Hipal (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal The link to the Internet Archive is extremely important. It's my strongest piece of evidence by far. I really hope you'll consider including it. Thanks! Ed Morykwas (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Independent references are superior. See WP:NOT and WP:EL. --Hipal (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~The independent references do not verify that the site existed in 1986.~~ Two administrators and an experienced user were recently involved in getting that archive link whitelisted for the purpose of using it here. The Detroit Free Press has a typo in it, saying "5 years ago" in an article dated 2001, where it should have been "fifteen years ago". Newspapers do make mistakes. In this case the independent source definitely isn't superior. The archive dates of archive.org are far more trustworthy. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What source is showing 1986? That's an incredibly unlikely date. 1996 is claimed by the prior owner and seems to be verified by the DFP site and by the IA site. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admins make mistakes. The COI situation should have been taken into account, as well as the content policies.

We have independent refs, which I've identified. One verifies '96. The other indicates a list was created in '95. --Hipal (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what was going through my head there when the year "1986" got stuck in it. Apologies. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break in discussion

So we agree to the '96 date? What is the purpose of the link to the archived copy of the site at this point? --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal Evan Britton claims that he created the Famous Birthdays website in 2012. That simply isn't true. The archived copy from 1998 is undeniable evidence -- seeing is believing. Ed Morykwas (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All we need is one independent, reliable source. We have multiple, thanks to you. --Hipal (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black people cannot reach the top

I worked for the Famous Birthday website and I can confirm that the booster button doesn’t really work that way. They asked us to manually change who is trending and who is not. This week there were a black guy trending and they asked us to remove all of his numbers because he was about to become one of the top 100 celebrities. Kendallkotzur (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]