To report an error when this list is currently on the Main Page, see Main Page errors. Please remember that this list defers to the supporting articles, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
Before making a suggestion, please read the selected anniversaries guidelines. Please remember that this list usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
To discuss improvements to the corresponding July 3 article, see Talk:July 3 instead.
Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is [Insert event here], an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed, not posted?
A1: Relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted. Any given day of the year can have a great many important or significant historical events. The problem is that there is generally only room on the Main Page to list about 5 events at a time, so not everything can be posted.
As stated on Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page, the items and events posted on the Main Page are chosen based more on how well they are written, not based on how much important or significant their subjects are. It is easier for admins to select a well-written, cited, verifiable article over a poor one versus trying to determine objectively how much a subject is important or significant.
Keep in mind that the quality requirements only apply to the selected bolded article, not the other links. Thus, an event may qualify for multiple dates in a year if there is an article written in a summary style and an article providing detailed content; if one of those pages have cleanup issues, the other page can be bolded as an alternate.
Another criterion is to maintain some variety of topics, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism, or the belief that the world stops at the edge of the English-speaking world. Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure. In addition, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled featured article or featured picture.
Q2: There are way too many 20th-century events listed. Why aren't there more events from the 19th century and before?
Q3: This page seems to be biased toward events based in [Insert country or region here]. What can be done about it?
A3: This again is attributed to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Many users are generally more interested in working on good, well-written articles pertaining to their home country. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there will be more English-speaking users, and thus more articles pertaining to English-speaking countries. And if there are more users who are from the United States, there will probably be more well-written articles about events based in the United States. Again, if you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q4: Why is the birthday/death anniversary of [Insert name here] not listed?
A4: There are only four slots available for birth and death anniversaries. As with the events, article quality and diversity in time period, geography, and reason for notability are all contributing factors in whether an article gets selected for inclusion.
Q5: Are the holidays/observances listed in any particular order?
A5: Yes, there is a specified order: International observances first, then alphabetically by where observed.
Q6: Some of the holidays/observances that are listed have dates in parentheses beside them. What do they mean?
A6: There are two reasons that some holidays/observances have dates next to them:
Non-Gregorian-based holidays/observances are marked with the current year as a reminder to others that their dates do in fact vary from year to year.
National Days, Independence Days, and other holidays celebrating the nationhood of a country are generally marked by the year of the significant historic date being observed.
"Independence Day" is alright IMHO, because it means liberation from Nazis in 1944 (Minsk was liberated on this day). Cmapm 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand, why we should invent new names. "Independence Day" is the official translation [1] and is even named so in the American CIA World Fact Book[2]. Cmapm 10:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am claiming ignorance here. I really don't know. I would associate "Independence Day" with events on July 27 or August 25. I find this quite odd. But, as "Independence Day" is the official translation, we should keep it. Thanks. -- PFHLai 10:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure the Capetians didn't last to anywhere near the French Revolution; the dynasty went extinct with the death of Charles IV in 1328, and was followed by the Valois and Bourbon dynasties. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article on the Capetians, the Valois and Bourbon dynasties are branches of the Capetian dynasty. However, I must note that House of Bourbon doesn't mention the Capetians at all. joturner 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, while the Valois and Bourbon are technically branches of the House of Capet, the term "Capetian dynasty" is used (outside Wikipedia, anyways) only in reference to the direct Capetian line. Kirill Lokshin 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today is the Fast of the Seventeenth of Tammuz in Judaism, one of the six fasts of the Jewish year. Please add it if possible. Valley2city 05:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and put this in. I think there are 3 main reasons/
1. 150th anniversary
2. Great overall article
3. Would be its first time (I think)
4. The Battle of Wyoming was a minor event at best, while the Battle of Gettysburg basically sealed the fate of the entire South, the Battle of Wyoming had little effect in a samll area in Pennsylvania.
Ziggy Stardust "slated for expansion" - what does that mean?[edit]
Hi @Howcheng: - I noticed that the entry for Ziggy says it needs expansion, but I don't understand what that means. There are 3 wikilinks in the entry, one to David Bowie, which is a Featured Article, one to Ziggy Stardust (character), which, while not rated, is a fairly substanstive article, and one to the Ziggy Stardust Tour page, which is also not rated, but thorough and well-cited. Is there something else that needs to be done to bring this entry up to the quality standards required for inclusion? Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 87Fan, thanks for suggesting this article for inclusion. Each entry has to have a "bold" article that is highlighted. In this case I thought the Ziggy Stardust article the best one to feature. One of the criteria for the article to be featured is that it "must be a relatively complete and well-formatted article, free from 'yellow'-level or more severe article issue tags". There is an orange "this section needs expansion" tag at Ziggy_Stardust_(character)#Cultural_impact; if this can be resolved then it would be good to go. I did look at Ziggy Stardust Tour as well but the Ziggy_Stardust_Tour#Songs section is largely uncited - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dumelow! This is great information. I was able to update both articles, including adding citations where necessary and removing uncited statements when required. I believe that, between those changes, neither article has any 'needs citation' tags anymore. I agree that the Ziggy Stardust (character) page is the best one to highlight/bold. Let me know if you disagree, and appreciate your guidance here! 87Fan (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 87Fan, I don't know enough about the subject to make a judgement but the tags have been removed. I added the book I assume you were referring to (Pegg 2016) to the tour article. I'll look to add in the Ziggy event for this year's selection now - Dumelow (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I missed adding the Pegg book to the article? My bad, thank you for catching and fixing it. That was the right thing. Appreciate your help here, and happy to see this will show up on the 7/3 article! 87Fan (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on a full expansion of the Ziggy tour article here. I already have quite a lot but am planning on fast tracking that this weekend as I'd like it to be finished by the anniversary. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 17:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word 'only' is incorrect: the article gives two consequences. It is also POV as it gives the impression that the actions by one side were ill-conceived, perhaps foolish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.208.152.158 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, "only" signifies that the action had a consequence which was the opposite of what was intended. For example, "The company lowered the price of the widget, only to find that sales dropped even lower than before." —howcheng {chat} 06:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]