Talk:October 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Days of the year
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.
This box: viewtalkedit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

October 23: Mole Day

Paulina Kellogg Wright Davis
Paulina Kellogg Wright Davis

John Heisman (b. 1869) · Douglas Jardine (b. 1900) · Annabel Breuer (b. 1992)

More anniversaries:

Added / removed[edit]


  • 1958 Springhill, Nova Scotia coal mine disaster.


Could not be confirmed outside of 'This day in history'-type websites (very bad source). --mav 22:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
source of date is britannica 2001 Boris Živ
Could not be confirmed. --mav 22:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Trivial. Who cares? --mav 22:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed

It seems this occurred on October 1, 1971. See [1] -- Minesweeper 00:33, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)


Quote: 1906 - Alberto Santos-Dumont flies the 14-bis in the first officially-recognised heavier-than-air flight at Champs de Bagatelle, Paris, France. This is disputable. What is an officially-recognised flight? What is not officially recognised about the flights of the Wright brothers (not only the december 1903 hop, but also the 39 km roundabout flight of 1905?). Fram 13:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Non notable people[edit]

  • removed birth of Patrick Hill, Soon to be Famous, shouldn't we wait until he is famous to add him. Ben D. 09:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • On October 23rd Of 1993 Ryan Charles Ernest Johnoson Was Born
  • Removed birth of Robert Pena, American scientist (1983) Dpv 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not factual[edit]

Is there any problem with me adding the following line? 4004 BC - According to the chronology of Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, the universe was created at nightfall. The wording is taken from the entry on 5th millennium BC. Trvsdrlng (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider this event to be fiction. It is not factual and it is just what some guy said. I don't think it is widely believed to be true and it hasn't affected the way the world is today. Since fiction doesn't go here, I'd say it doesn't belong. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually its a basis for Young earth creationism and is probably worth a mention.-- (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It is factual in that Ussher did make that determination. It should be included. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the relevant article, the date was 23 October in the Julian calendar. So the note should be at the corresponding Gregorian date, 21 September. Fishal (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


It is notable enough for newspapers, magazines and tv stations in China[2], Germany[3], Greece[4], the United StatesDallas, USA Today, Time Magazine, Chili[5], Canada[6] or the Czech Republic[7], they get a special museum exhibition[8] and the Belgian Mint (the official one, not some collector's company like Franklin Mint) issues a commemorating coin for it[9]. Many, many news media are going to have an article on the Smurfs in three days time, but we won't even mention it on the page October 23... What exactly is so non notable about it? Fram (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On the surface, it seems like something that would be only of interest to comic/cartoon enthusiasts. It doesn't seem like it would rise to the level of long-term global notability that is necessary for it to be included. It is in the news because of an anniversary, but it is not something that would be in the news every year on this date. The fact that it is being covered in newspapers all over the world on this one occasion doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion. Lots of things are newsworthy, but not all of them are noteworthy. It is an interesting piece of trivia but we can't reasonably consider the debut of every cartoon/comic to be notable in the long term. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not every comic, obviously, but perhaps some of the most important ones? I don't think that the elevation of Valentinian III to Roman Emperor is in the news every year on this date, or the first miniature golf tournament, or the visit of Akihito to China... A debut is not noteworthy: a debut that makes (minor, not frontpages of course) headlines around the world fifty years later, days and months before actually happening, (so not only an "on this day" trivia mention) is noteworthy. Fram (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in reasoning that there are a lot of entries that really do not belong. But the newest ones always get noticed first. This isn't really something that is in the history books or that is the topic of discussion among disinterested parties. It isn't indicative of any sort of social milestone or achievement. It doesn't seem to fit per WP:DOY. Perhaps it is a bigger story in Belgium? With that said, I am growing confident in my assumption that I have little chance of convincing a "comic addict" that this event is not notable. So I will not press the issue. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's a proposed guideline I hadn't seen yet. The main thing seems to me "stands the test of time". Being noticed worldwide (in major mainstream media) fifty years after the "birth" shows that it has stood the test of time in a reasonable way (will it be mentioned when it is 100 years old? No idea, I don't have a crystal ball...). Anyway, I notice that in WP:DOY, the standards for our hundreds of thousands of biographical articles are much more lax than for every other article: every person with an article can be listed on his date of birth and date of death, but a major article (this one was automatically selected for the Wikipedia 0.7 release) on a work of art cannot be listed on the date of its first appearance? Fram (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The spirit of WP:DOY is that events can reasonably be expected to be notable in 100 years. As far as the births and deaths "being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wikicalendar article". Unfortunately, this is very rarely enforced, mostly because it is so vague. Events are usually (only slightly) more cut and dry - or at least arguable. The idea is to make the calendar articles useful and informative to the widest possible audience. This usefulness gets diluted when a lot of semi-notable events get added and readers could get frustrated by having to sift through a lot of stuff that doesn't interest them. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
But to me, the mix of negative and positive elements, of an endless list of wars and much more positive childhood memories for a great number of people of all ages, makes such a page much more interesting. It is not an history book, but a showcase of the mix of articles Wikipedia has to offer, while still excluding the barely notable, since we indeed have to be selective. To come back to the article at hand: everyone in the world (slight exaggeration :-) ) knows the Smurfs, but not many people know that they are already 50 years old, most people thinking that they are relics of the 1980s. This is to me a good example of an entry that it is useful and informative to the widest possible audience, as evidenced by the wide range of serious news outlets worldwide that share this view and report on this. 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective, they fall into the same category as GI Joe and the Thundercats. It's kind of like a movie release. They are never notable - although I know some have snuck into the lists. The positive/negative twist is interesting, but in this case, I think this is a flash in the pan surrounding the anniversary. I think more work needs to go into defining a guideline for the content of these articles, but unfortunately, there is little community interest in doing so. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the equivalence with disposable pop-culture properties like GI Joe: the Smurfs are--long-term and globally--famous and recognized, to the point where UNICEF used them in one of their public-awareness campaigns. I'll also note as further evidence that Smurfs has at least 32 foreign-language articles (yes, i left off Simple English), so yes, I'd say it belongs here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just speaking from my own knowledge of the Smurfs. I only knew them as a cartoon in the early 80's. Perhaps they are on par with Bugs Bunny, and I had no idea. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked, and there are 9 new articles listed on Google News just for today about the Smurfs' anniversary[10], from Norway, Argentina, Hungary, Germany, France, Spain, and Taiwan: the number of articles tomorrow will be logically much larger and even more widespread. I think this is clealrly considered a notable event worldwide. While the 51st, 52nd, ... birthday will receive much less attention, I think that this can be said for almost any entry here. I don't think that the 50th anniversary of the Thundercats will get worldwide attention by major news outlets, but if it does, then it will prove that it/they have made a lasting impression and that they deserve an entry as well. 13:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is nice: Our "selected anniversary for this day" has: "In his comic series Johan and Peewit in the weekly magazine Spirou, Belgian cartoonist Peyo introduced a new set of small sky blue characters known as The Smurfs"

Now, the Radio Taiwan International "Today in History" page has[11]: "A group of sky-blue cartoon characters called The Smurfs were first introduced on this day in 1958. They were the invention of Belgian cartoonist Peyo, who drew them into his comic series Johan and Peewit, which was published in the weekly magazine Spirou." I wonder where they got their ... let's call it "inspiration" from? Fram (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

James Ussher's date of the world's beginning[edit]

It might be worth mentioning here that James Ussher believed the world was began on this date, as Jeremy Paxman mentioned on Newsnight on the night of October 22, 2008. Some sources will give October 22 - indeed, the article on Ussher says that he believed it began on the night preceding October 23. His birth of the world was 22 or 23 October, 4004 B.C.. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it seems appropriate to mention this date's curious distinction. I'd go ahead and add it, but i'm not sure where it belongs. I imagine listing it simply as an "historical" event would, rightly, invite a speedy deletion. But could it be phrased appropriately (in NPOV language)? Perhaps something along the lines of: "Some Christian theologians believe, for example, according to James Ussher's chronoly, written in the 17th century, that God's creation of the Earth began on October 23rd, 4004 BC." Ramurf (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Although, after looking more closely at WP:DOY it might be argued that this simply belongs elsewhere, for example, in a portal of dates in monotheism(?). Nevertheless I think it seems like a significant claim about this day, and that as a claim it may be of interest to any Wikipedian (whether it seems ridiculous or not), and so, again, I think there should be a place for it; if not as an "event" (carefully phrased as NPOV) then perhaps as an "observance"? Ramurf (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably isn't appropriate for the Holidays and Observances section, observances are things that recur every year. There would need to be a significant number of people that actually celebrate this date each year, and there would have to be an article on wikipedia that mentions it is celebrated. The Ussher chronology page doesn't mention any celebration of this date at all. As for the Events section, as the Ussher chronology article points out, it is just one of a number of dates people (including Bede, Newton, and Kepler) have proposed for the beginning of the world, and it may just be an accident of history that Ussher's is the best known these days. The portal idea sounds fine, but as for the DOY pages, this seems too speculative. The fact that it is unclear whether it was supposed to be on the 22nd or 23rd is a sign that there were no historians around that noted the date, so finding reliable sources to help figure out which is right is going to be impossible. I doubt there are any events from 6000 years ago that can be reliably dated to a particular day. Winston365 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Note also that there is a Julian/Gregorian discrepancy for the date, and even if true, it is not today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I nominate to Days of the year[edit]

Giovanni da Capestrane[edit]

He is much more commonly known in English as St John of Capistrano, or, in the US, San Juan de Capistrano. Should be changed I think to St John etc. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)