Talk:List of unofficial observances by date

References

Ironholds put an "unreferenced" tag on this page. The only data here that needs references is the list of dates, and they're from the articles themselves, and should be referenced in the individual articles. --Slashme (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted from my talk page:

I'm afraid that isn't good enough; each article needs to have references for all its facts, regardless of if the facts are referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia; Slade's Case, for example, needs references even though it's covered in the article on Edward Coke. See WP:Source list, which says that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability". I appreciate you're an experienced editor, but if you need any help with the referencing, give me a poke on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that material in lists needs to be verifiable and sourced. For example, in another list that I started, List of steroid abbreviations, I cited the sources of the abbreviations, because those sources weren't cited in the original articles. On the other hand, in List of Latinised names I didn't. In this case, the day when the observance is held is one of the key things that has to be mentioned and referenced in the article, and is easy to check. You'll note that WP:Source list doesn't specifically state that the citation must appear in the list (if this is truly a policy, I think it needs clarification). Obviously if I were to add February 14 - Handlebar moustache day to the list, with no link to an article on that most important of moustache holidays, that's original research which needs its own citation, and the list would be a great place to put it. That's my interpretation, but I'm open to persuasion. --Slashme (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it seems fairly obvious that it means "lists must be referenced within the list". All lists should be lists of content which appears elsewhere; if referencing was not needed within the list, such a line in the policy would not exist. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all info in lists exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. Sometimes the list items aren't notable or don't have their own articles yet, but have to be included for completeness, for example a list of all state tennis clubs, some of which are independently famous, and some of which aren't. --Slashme (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems wikilawyering to me. Can I suggest getting a third opinion? Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great suggestion. What's the correct forum to request some input? --Slashme (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there used to be a "third opinion" noticeboard, but I can't find it. Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, maybe? Give me a poke when you've set up a thread. Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've gotten some second opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_53#Sources_for_lists it seems to me that there is a general consensus that as long as the list items link to articles which have sources, that's good enough, and it's also easier to maintain references in one place than in two. Based on that feedback, I'm going to WP:IAR and remove the unreferenced tag. I'm completely OK with anyone putting it back if they feel that more discussion is required or that I misconstrued the discussion. --Slashme (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that some references are included <g> Collect (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record Store Day

Isn't it honored on the third Saturday of April? While I haven't seen any official statements that it is, all the dates (from 2008 to 2011) all land on the third Saturday. I'll edit the main page as well as the article, unless anyone has an objection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.219.201 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Free Hugs Day

The International Free Hugs Day, on the first saturday of july, isn't mentioned in the list, the article Free Hugs Campaign mentioned the celebration of this day. I have added it in the mainpage (i didn't think it is this easy xD). Ty --Crotha (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chic Spy Day

@Magould: you have been adding "Chic Spy Day" to this list, but it's not a notable observance, so I've removed it. Please discuss here before adding it again. --Slashme (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: Hello Slashme, I hope I am responding correctly in this area. Can you explain to me what the criteria is or what designates a notable observance–or is it based on the opinion/judgement of the editors. There are some outrageous days that don't even have sources. Chic Spy Day has been recorded in major databases and if you look on social media, people actually celebrate the day. Let me know how to proceed. Thanks! (talk)

@Magould: To be included in this list, an observance needs to be notable enough to have its own page, where it should be referenced to multiple independent reliable sources that discuss it in detail, or it should be supported in this list by multiple independent reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Your only reference so far was a database, which didn't fulfil these requirements. --Slashme (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]