Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 26

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Howcheng in topic 2022 notes
Today's featured article for March 26, 2025
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 26, 2025
Picture of the day for March 26, 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.

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)Reply
Based on the date in Caxton's epilogue. See http://www.bartleby.com/39/7.html & http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13182/13182-8.txt. Not in the main text of any wikiarticles yet. --76.64.78.141 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but until it is added to those articles, it cannot be mentioned here yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Act of Union edit

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)Reply

Removal of Bangladesh Liberation war entry by YellowMonkey edit

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)Reply

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)Reply


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)Reply

YellowMonkey's disputing the POV issues with the article. —Dark 06:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

2012 notes edit

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

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

2013 notes edit

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

2014 notes edit

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

2015 notes edit

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

2016 notes edit

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

2017 notes edit

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

2018 notes edit

howcheng {chat} 03:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

2019 notes edit

howcheng {chat} 15:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

2020 notes edit

howcheng {chat} 18:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

2021 notes edit

howcheng {chat} 23:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

2022 notes edit

howcheng {chat} 16:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply