Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today's featured article for September 28, 2025
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2025
Picture of the day for September 28, 2025

The featured picture for this day has not yet been chosen.

In general, pictures of the day are scheduled in order of promotion to featured status. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines for full guidelines.

2012 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 09:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whaam!

[edit]

I just noticed this edit. There are two schools of thought on main page presentation. People at DYK view the main page as a one time thing and make ITNs ineligible. People at ITN view DYK as something the constrains ITN only in the sense that they can't run at the same time. I.e., as soon as it is finished at DYK they could use it at ITN. This is probably because ITN views the main page appearance as something that can repeat. I have never seen the OTD and FAC issue come up, but since OTD appearance can repeat, I thought the view should be something like the ITN view where an appearance could occur right away after it finishes on another main page section. I had all along hoped that if Whaam! was not scheduled at FAC on the 28th that it be at OTD as the main image on the 28th. Is there an OTD rule that precludes Whaam! from runing at OTD after it finishes at FAC?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rescheduling the Whaam! TFA this late in the day. At such short notice, it's unfair to the primary authors of whichever article I pick to replace it. I made the decision 8 days ago on what articles should run on 27th and 28th September and nobody has come back to me with any issues until this suggestion, the day before, on an unrelated page. I'm not the one who makes the final decisions here at OTD - that tends to be Howcheng, and I'm sure he'll see this discussion when he comes to check the OTD selection before 28th Sept.

But, for what it's worth, I don't think it's fair to have the TFA on 27th appear on OTD on 28th. For one thing, it means that the same article will be linked prominently in two places on the main page at the same time (in OTD and, of course, in the "recently featured" list of the previous three days' TFAs). For another thing, it means that some other article has to give way to make room for Whaam!. And for a final thing, it would show a lack of co-ordination between the various main page sections to have such an obvious overlap on successive days - particularly if the suggestion is that the same derivative image should be used in both places on both days. Whaam! is not so important to Wikipedia readers, in my view, that it is appropriate to celebrate its 50th anniversary on the main page on successive days. OTD aims for variety for readers, I think, and repeating yesterday's TFA - particularly with the same image - is hardly offering variety.

There will be plenty of opportunities in future years for Whaam! to appear at OTD - the reality is that there are often few suitable articles for any particular day of the year and I would have thought that a well-maintained FA could reasonably expect to appear every other year or so.

I don't particularly care what the house rules for DYK and ITN are, because we are not talking about DYK or ITN. Yes, ITN images sometimes stay up for more than 24 hours, but that's only because not every story has a usable free image and ITN can often go more than 24 hours without a fresh story anyway. That argument is no precedent here.

The success or otherwise of the TFA drive for Whaam! is also, respectfully, besides the point. (Personally I would have thought that the most successful TFA drives would be the ones with the least amount of commentary necessary, where nearly all of the issues that might arise were addressed in the initial writing of the article, but that's besides the point...)

Tony, I think that asking whether there is a rule or a precedent to prevent it happening is the wrong approach here. At the end of the day, I think it's a question of basic fairness and common sense. Should an article that has been TFA on 27th take one of the few slots at OTD on 28th, or should it give way to something else that hasn't just been the TFA and try again next year? Just because there is no rule against such a thing happening (if that is the case, Howcheng may know) does not mean that it should be done. The absence of such a rule is, in fact, equally consistent with no-one ever before pushing for such an unfortunate monopolisation of the limited space available on the main page.

[Since writing the previous sentences, I've noticed something else, and so I add this:] If, though, you insist on a precedent, look at the 2012 notes for OTD 27th Sept - where Dawn (spacecraft) was ineligible to appear because it had just appeared on ITN. Does that help? BencherliteTalk 15:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The answer is no. When I was vetting DYK entries years ago, we would not accept an article if it was also under consideration for ITN, the rationale being that DYK was not a "second chance" venue should it fail to be accepted at ITN. I have no idea if this is still the case. Bencherlite pretty much nailed it, but let me restate: We already have a rule that says an article cannot make more than one OTD appearance in a single year. We also know that an article can't appear in multiple sections on the Main Page simultaneously (with the exception of TFA/POTD). Furthermore, to avoid topic fatigue, OTD also will skip articles related to others that have recently appeared (e.g., I won't run Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in the same year). Here's another example: William McKinley was TFA on Sep 14 2012 and I removed Theodore Roosevelt that day, even though McKinley was not the bold article. From these rules/guidelines/precedents, you can extrapolate that I would absolutely not run Whaam! in such proximity to a TFA appearance. Sorry. (As a side note, I'm retitling this section, because "2013 notes" will be the section title for when I log what changes I made for this year.) howcheng {chat} 16:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 06:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 September 2013

[edit]

In the sentence, "The publication of The Sorrows of Young Werther rose the 24-year-old Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (pictured) to international fame", "rose" is grammatically incorrect (egregiously so, I'm afraid) and should be changed to "raised" or preferably, "elevated". WolfmanSF (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WolfmanSF (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I cannot find anything in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 28 which resembles the problem text shown above. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 11:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 07:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 16:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 05:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 16:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 21:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 07:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 notes

[edit]

Heart (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]