Talk:February 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a Wikiproject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.


This box: viewtalkedit
Selected anniversaries for this day
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

February 5: Constitution Day in Mexico; Sapporo Snow Festival in Japan begins (2008); Shrove Tuesday in Western Christianity and Mardi Gras (2008)

Prince Alexander John Cuza of Romania

More events: February 4February 5February 6

It is now 05:15, June 13, 2008 (UTC) – Refresh this page

[edit] 2008 Super Tuesday is not a significant event

This is not the first Super Tuesday. The only difference is more states were involved. My understanding is that this page is for "significant" events. Adding comments like this makes this page more less trivia rather than historical items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a significant event. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Definately not notable, it shouldn't be listed. Grouf(talk contribs) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the largest single-day primary event in the history of the United States. Therefore, notable. Kingturtle (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter? The number changes every year. Have we noted all of the previous largest Super Tuesdays? The last largest was March 7, 2000, does anyone remember that? No one will care about this one either. It has no appreciable impact because sooner or later every state has its primary. We don't note election day, why would we note pre-election day? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking "does anyone remember that" is a moot point. The purpose of a day-of-the-year article is NOT to jog the memory for nostalgic sake. The purpose is to catalog notable historic events.

Yes, we do sometimes note election days, and yes, we should note this largest ever primary day. This is the first time in 80 years that there is no incumbent candidate for either major party - the first time in 80 years that the field is wide open for both major parties. Therefore, the super tuesday of 2008 is quite significant. Kingturtle (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The numbers don't change every year because it is not a yearly occurrence.

I see that you capitalized on what amounts to a typo. Clearly I meant the numbers change every time there is a presidential election and they absolutely do. What is impacted by this occurrence? Does it change the election process? I don't think in five years that one will look back on this event and suggest that it was all that remarkable. I also don't see how the 80 years topic relates to this discussion. That part is just trivia. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not trivia or trivial that the U.S. has not seen since the 1920s its two major parties without a incumbent or incumbent-endorsed candidate. This is new political terrain for nearly all Americans. That paired with enormity of Super Tuesday gives significance to the event. It is the closest the U.S. has ever come to a national primary, and that is significant. Kingturtle (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this event is limited to US Politics, and a rather small part of it. These elections only lead to other elections, which will lead to other elections, etc. I don't see anything notable resulting from this event. I don't consider 'new political terrain' notable. I will agree that it is interesting and is getting a lot of media attention, but I don't see any long-term significance. Grouf(talk contribs) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Since there has not been anything notable result from this event, and there are 3 arguments to remove, and only one to keep; I am removing this event. Grouf (talk contribs) 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Well its back. Someone should add that it had no significant impact and 4 weeks later the race goes on. Maybe if Clinton stomps Obama in Pennsylvania we should at that one too.Rlbarton (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] significance?

I imagine I am loose contructionist when it comes to adding things to day of the year articles while many of you are strict constructionists (as we have seen over the Super Tuesday debate. By my bar, the following events are ok, but according to a strict constructionist sense, the following events are not internationally significant. Can anyone defend the international significance of:

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In my judgment, all of the above should be excluded. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see no international significance of any of those entries. In fact I remember seeing the red nose entry and thinking that should be removed, but when I was looking I didn't have time to dig further into the event, and since then I had forgotten which date it was on. I would remove all those entries. Grouf (talk contribs) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We're only going to be left with actions of governments. Kingturtle (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
First please don't delete my comments. Second I see no problem with that. The way that I read WP:NGS the date pages should only contain major historical events, and these, as far as I can tell, are not major historical events. Grouf (talk contribs) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I did not intentionally delete your comments. It was an error. Kingturtle (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit Conflict (yes I was sitting on it for a while): I don't think so. The first successful brain transplant will be notable. Invention of the virtual reality sex machine will be notable. Largest earthquake ever is notable. Social firsts aren't necessarily tied to governments, nor are crime and scientific events. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
oh...edit conflict....sorry, I'm use to vandals intentionally deleting, 'honest mistake' didn't occur to me. No hard feelings. Grouf (talk contribs) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on this, but according to my standards, the major tornado outbreak should stay, but according to the prevailing standards I don't see how it is internationally notable or significant. Kingturtle (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The prevailing standard would support exclusion. We can really only go on the prevailing standards which are as close to consensus as we'll get. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)