Talk:May 4

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: view • talk • edit
Selected anniversaries for this day
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

May 4: Remembrance of the Dead in the Netherlands; Greenery Day in Japan

William Walker

More events: May 3 – May 4 – May 5

Archive – By email – More anniversaries...
It is now 06:56, June 14, 2008 (UTC) – Refresh this page

[edit] Star Wars

May the Forth be with you.

[edit] Star Wars Not Funny

That's really not funny, don't add it back.Kiwiboy121 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Kiwiboy121, Wikipedia is not the place for jokes. Every day dozens or hundreds of people get in long, drawn-out efforts to insert a joke, in the fervant belief that their joke is funny. Can't Wikipedia make an exception? See this joke is really funny... No. Please don't put it in again. --TeaDrinker 07:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of content about "May the Fourth be with you". I searched Wikipedia for an explanation, because I'd seen pictures of people celebrating it in the past, and wanted to explain it to someone who hadn't heard of it. Just because a cultural phenomenon is based on something humorous doesn't make it trivial, or non-noteworthy. If there's a Wikipedia editing guideline that says "nothing funny", I'd like someone to point it out.SeanCollins (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really answering myself. User:Mufka removed the Star Wars Day entry (along with others) on 6th April 2008 stating "nn", which I'm guessing is "not notable". I haven't checked the general "not notable" guidelines for this one, but in WP:DAYS it states

references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles

. A reliable reference is provided in the linked article. Perhaps the deletion could be defended on the grounds of

...trivia [...], fabricated holidays and observances

, but those definitions are open to interpretation, aren't they? SeanCollins (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This would be considered a fabricated holiday and the entry that was last added did not link to a supporting article that specifically mentioned the observance. If an article is written about this observance, then one could argue that it should be listed (an article about the subject would indicate notability). WP:DOY expands on criteria for observances. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I may have edited this article out of step with your edit to the Talk page. Apologies if that's the case. 'Fabricated holiday' is weak justification - they must all have been fabricated once, by their nature. You're right - the reference recounts only the joke, and is not a record of someone actually celebrating the day, although its inclusion in Hansard makes it as 'officially celebrated' as a religious authority declaring a feast day, in my opinion. I've reviewed WP:DOY and while it may not fit the requirements of the first paragraph of that page, I suspect little on Wikipedia does. Perhaps the WP:DOY standard has been set too high? If I could suggest a better set of rules for accepting / rejecting contributions, I would... SeanCollins (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In cases like this, I think that a reasonable litmus test is that the observance has to be the subject of an article (its own article). That way we can be sure that the subject is considered notable enough by Wikipedia standards for inclusion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's not an unreasonable test, though it is a high standard. I would hesitate to create an article about Star Wars Day, based on my current knowledge of it, but I suspect an observer of saints' days might also be reluctant to create a separate article for every one of their annual celebrations. I personally wouldn't miss the inclusion of religious feast days, but I suspect some might. If by 'subject' you meant the subject of the celebration, and not the celebration itself (ie Pancake, as opposed to Pancake Day), then Star Wars Day passes the test, as do the saints. As for notability, isn't the existence of some highly-regarded external record the usual test? Perhaps your definition is recursive! It's a tricky one, the standard for inclusion shouldn't be too low, but not so high as to reject entries that some might find informative. If it wasn't for the Hansard record, I feel I wouldn't have a leg to stand on where notability is concerned... If you felt strongly about deleting it on the basis of no Star Wars Day article, then I'll write one. Apparently The City of Los Angeles officially proclaimed 25 May 2007 as Star Wars Day, but not recurring. I've done a bit more research on this than I ever wanted to, but thinking about the include / remove has been useful. SeanCollins (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In the case of religious feasts, the subjects have bio articles that state what the feast day is. It would be redundant to have both a bio article and a feast day article. Also the feast day is really part of the subject's biography. In the case of non-religious observances, we need to have some benchmark. If an observance is widely celebrated, it would have no problem meeting notability requirements and the opposite would also be true. Notability is the benchmark for most things that happen here. It is widely accepted as an absolute minimum for inclusion. Since the date pages don't use references, entries must link to an existing article where the event is mentioned explicitly in the text. The requirement that observances be the subject of their own articles goes along with births and deaths requiring their own articles. It has been long practiced as a good way to weed out the less notable observances. You are certainly welcome to create the article, but I would suggest that you wait a day or two after creating it to be sure that the community doesn't delete it before adding the observance back to this article. This topic has been discussed before and it doesn't stand up well to scrutiny (alas, I cannot put my finger on the previous discussions). The observance doesn't even seem to be treated seriously on the Wookieepedia. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I might add Star Wars Day when I'm less busy. Thanks for taking the time to discuss. Even in the event I add the article, if the DOY articles are strictly specified as "official recurring events, important historical dates, births and deaths", there would still be no room for the Star Wars Day entry. There is no organisation that lends legitimacy to the use of "May the fourth be with you" as a holiday or day of observance. The reason I added it to "Holidays and Observances" is that it was the least unsuitable place on the page. A page which is, after all, a list of lists. I think there could be room for less formal content about days of the year. The entry for August 8, for example explains that 8 8 sounds like the Chinese word for father, and so lots of people informally celebrate their fathers on that day. An observation very similar to the one we're discussing. Not a cast-in-stone fact, but it does add colour to the article. I think I've described my POV in fine detail now, so I'm signing off - I won't be reverting your removal. SeanCollins (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here says that "if an article is written about this observance, then one could argue that it should be listed" which it is, but it's still being deleted. So what is the new litmus test in order for it to be added and stay there? 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You've seen my POV, should be on the page 'to add colour', shouldn't be on the page because it's not an observance. If WP:DOY allowed trivia, then the inclusion of the Star Wars Day joke would be good, but these DOY pages would be a mess. If there was a real organisation that was in itself notable, and observed Star Wars Day as a holiday, then it should be on the page. So far as I've looked into it, there isn't. If the joke could go anywhere on this page, it might just cheer up the tedium that is this page's intro. Hmmm, I see that Pi Day is included as an observance on March 14, maybe the anti-vandal squad is less pedantic there. Or maybe it's because there is a record of people actually celebrating it. SeanCollins (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independence

I removed the following listing because it is not true;

South Carolina did it first on March 15, 1776, nearly two months before Rhode Island. Look it up. The Shadow 2-28-08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.250.34 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)