Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today's featured article for April 15, 2025
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 15, 2025
Picture of the day for April 15, 2025

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.

tank image

[edit]

the image with the tanks took place in early June of 1989. the image should not be used for April 15. Kingturtle 08:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And yet that photo of Jackie Robinson was taken after the event depicted on this page. --mav
Touche...but I see a difference between a portrait and an actual event. Portraits tend to be "timeless." But an image of historical context should be accurate date-wise. Kingturtle 16:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Titanic

[edit]

I think mention of the RMS Titanic belongs on April 15, not 14. The important part of the Titanic event happened on April 15 (meaning the actually sinking) The only actual significant part of the Titanic disaster that happened on April 14 was striking the iceberg MechBrowman 21:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's okay on either day, as long as the item is accurately worded. Hitting the iceberg was the critical starting point of the sinking, which took hours. Anyway, a 5th item is needed for the SA template for April 14th, while the template for the 15th has 6 items, i.e. 1 too many. Hence the move seems alright to me. ... However, for 2006, the bombing of Mumbai on April 14th, 1944 (See Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 14.) may bump the Titanic item back to April 15th to avoid featuring 2 catastrophes on the same day .... How's that ? :-) -- PFHLai 16:21, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
Now that I thought about it, it doesn't matter too much since most people know what happens to Titanic after it hits the iceberg, but if April 15 ever has room (for whatever reason) Titanic should be moved back. MechBrowman 16:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
The item on boxing would probably be the first to go .... -- PFHLai 16:52, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

[edit]

"1947 - African American Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers broke the color line in professional baseball"

This was not the first time he played professional baseball (surely the Negro League was professional, not to mention the minor league). It was his debut in Major League Baseball. So I think that the quoted item should say Major League Baseball in place of professional baseball. DHR 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the line for next year. Is it better now ? --PFHLai 05:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"1947 - African American Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers played his first game in Major League Baseball, breaking the color line in professional baseball"
Thanks! Unfortunately, this still isn't right. Surely the colour line in professional baseball was broken by or before Jackie Robinson played for the Montreal Royals 1946. The Royals were a professional team and they were mostly white (unlike the Negro Leagues). Again, replacing the remaining "professional baseball" with "Major League Baseball" would make this correct. When claiming a first, it is important to make the claim accurate. DHR 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... "the color line in professional baseball" seems ill-defined. Let's avoid the debate on which color line being 'the' color line. I'm looking for a way to keep the link to Professional baseball, as that page actually has a paragraph about Robinson. How about "a key step towards racial desegregation in professional baseball" ? --PFHLai 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found a better page: Baseball color line. I've completely rewritten the line. How is it now ? -- PFHLai 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"1947 - Jackie Robinson, the first African American to break the baseball color line, played his first game in Major League Baseball as a first baseman with the Brooklyn Dodgers"
Thanks again. Much better. I think that it is correct but a bit misleading. It might be improved as "1947 - Jackie Robinson, the first African American to break the baseball color line, became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball on this date." This is still awkward. The problem is that the second portion justifies the anniversary (first in MLB) but the first part has the link to the relevant article (baseball color line). Another thought: "1947 - Jackie Robinson became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball (see the baseball color line)". Details can be added to taste (I'm trying to be concise). DHR 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we avoid the brackets ? Let me think .... -- PFHLai 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsborough Disaster

[edit]

All the guidelines and the FAQ above are noted ... nevertheless the omission from the OTD list of the Hillsborough Disaster, on the 20th anniversary thereof and when it is featured in retrospective news and opinion articles worldwide, is hard to understand. Darcyj (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Madcynic (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot that Hillsborough Stadium could have been bolded as the alternative selected article. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. A story about McDonald's opening a ninth store? Really? I know that the OTD decisions aren't based on importance/signifance but it seems slightly wrong... It's Malpass 93! (drop me a ___) 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter O'Malley vs. Jackie Robinson

[edit]

With the addition of this edit and the accompanying hidden comment, I'm kinda of concerned if we did have to choose between one or the other. If both articles are equal in terms of the "well-written article" criterion, it seems to me there might be more complaints from baseball fans if O'Malley was chosen ahead of Robinson. Yes, I know that Robinson has been posted here for 5+ years, but from what I have read about baseball, there was an extremely notable reason why, among others, Robinson's jersey number, 42, was retired by every Major League Baseball team in 1997 – and that breaking the color barrier seemed to have much more impact to the sport than expanding to the West Coast. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Lincoln?

[edit]

No Lincoln assassination in "on this day"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenn5 (talkcontribs) 09:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its true that Lincoln died on April 15. But the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln itself, when John Wilkes Booth's gun actually went off, happened on April 14. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 11:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 05:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Shimabara Rebellion later removed for balance. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 03:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 11:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the list

[edit]

Titanic - 2

[edit]

1912 – The passenger liner 'RMS Titanic sank (pictured) about two hours and forty minutes after colliding with an iceberg, killing more than 1,500 people.

– Quibble with sentence structure: The above can be understood as saying that 1,500 died in the collision with the iceberg. Suggested rewording:
"The ocean liner RMS Titanic sank (pictured) about two hours and forty minutes after colliding with an iceberg, and more than 1,500 people died from drowning or exposure." Sca (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about it: "The ocean liner RMS Titanic .... , the event left more than 1,500 people dead."? Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or "...iceberg, as a result of which..." – or "...iceberg, resulting in the deaths of ...." Sca (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 06:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng: Jackie Robinson blurb will have its 70th anniversary next year. Does it matter? Mhhossein (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he'll go in for sure next year, unless he's TFA or POTD. Round-number anniversaries usually get priority. howcheng {chat} 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 17:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 03:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 16:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 20:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 07:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 notes

[edit]

howcheng {chat} 03:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]