This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
I have just added archive links to one external link on Administrative Professionals' Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This holiday is a registered trademark, and the registered trademark does not have an apostrophe. It should be Administrative Professionals Day. There shouldn't be any grammatical argumentation over this; the trademark holder is clearly the governing body here, I would think. If someone could please remove all the apostrophes, that would be great. (I don't know how to change an article title.) 205.178.112.38 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Administrative Professionals' Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@Bazza 7: I removed the {{Globalize}} template that you added to the article because the observance was invented in the US and then spread to other countries, so it makes sense that the History section focuses on the US because that's where the action took place. I also don't see the need to list country-specific traditions when they are all basically the same (flowers, gifts, meals). Are there any country-specific differences that you know of? —howcheng {chat}16:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Howcheng: I've never heard of this event. It's not on the calendar in the UK. The reference for Netherlands mentions the UK, but it's a commercial site only trying sell Dutch flowers to people. Similar goes for the Australian one. The others seem to be self-promotion by trade bodies deciding their members need some sort of public recognition. I added the template because (apart from the Observances list) the entire article body is about the US, with no other mention of, for example, when it migrated to other places and was proclaimed or embedded in their respective legal structures. I have a feeling that the article would be better served by stating it's a U.S.-only phenomenon, unless some none-commercial references can be found. (I can't get too excited, though: I only came across it as a result of OTD or something similar. Happy St George's Day!) Bazza (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7: It's not a public holiday anywhere AFAIK, so there won't be any statutes we can cite. That in and of itself is not an issue, as we have all sorts of observances that aren't (Valentine's Day, St Patrick's Day, etc). You might be right that outside the US it only exists as a matter of promotion by professional trade organizations, but if we change the article to say that "US-only" inevitably you'll get complaints that we're ignoring the places where it is observed. Google results in English invariably refer to the US with a smattering of results in Canada. Might have better luck with other language sources. —howcheng {chat}17:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this depend on when you start the week? In the US, weeks begin on Sunday but in many countries weeks begin on Monday. If April 30 is a Saturday, then the 27th would be the day by American calendars, but not others. Or is it "last full work week (M-F)"?--Khajidha (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
