Talk:January 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the January 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
Please see WT:DOY to discuss the format of the 366 day-of-year pages, with text generated by Template:Day or Template:This_date_in_recent_years, etc.
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page |
| Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box. |
|
January 1: Independence Day in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (1993); Public Domain Day; Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (Roman Rite Catholicism)  Lehms, c. 1715
More anniversaries:
|
Sources required
I am loathe to tag this article unduly, but not in agreement with its current condition. I have stated in comments above that birth and death dates can be verified through the sources in the articles on people listed, and need not be repeated here. But the section on events has no such backup for sources, and particularly when events of recent (or current) years (or decades) are concerned, there is a tendency for edits to be made without sources, appearing as unsubstantiated or contentious claims, and often requiring reversion or other correction. This correction then falls to the equally unsubstantiated knowledge and good faith of current editors, who may not challenge what they don't know to the contrary. That is backwards. Verification is a fundamental principle of WP, and that which has no source, and is not common knowledge (as in, "the unclouded sky is blue"), needs to be removed as unknown and possibly incorrect or misleading or unnotable. But it doesn't strike me as right, out of hand, to blank the events section in one stroke. I intend to start challenging certain entries on this basis, though, and proceeding gradually over time, and especially with regards to new entries. I invite all to contribute sources where they know of them, as I will. Each event should have at least one source unless there is an article on the event, in which case the article can be linked as with births and deaths. Feel free to comment if you disagree. I'd rather not start at all unless there is at least implicit consensus. Evensteven (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- The events section does not need sources per WP:DAYS. Each entry must link to an article that supports the claim. Anything that does not have this type of support should be removed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I wasn't aware of that arrangement, but it makes sense. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Lithuania in 1362.
How could Lithuania make it in 1362 if Lithuania was pagan at the time? Or it was not meant as a Christian holiday? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Grand Duchy Lithuania 1362
>>January 1 became the official start of the year as follows: 1362 - Grand Duchy Lithuania, etc. Is there any reference on that fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mepfkartophelus (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 22 February 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: This is not the place to discuss Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year basics. Toddst1 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
– Why are all the date articles not have the ending? Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jishiboka1 has also requested the two above moves. They are very closely related so I'm directing the discussions here. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – contrary to MOS:ORDINAL / MOS:BADDATE. — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:BADDATE. Using cardinal numerals instead of ordinal numerals in dates have been a staple of Wikipedia's Manual of Style since as far as I remember. I have assumed because the use of the cardinal numerals in date stamps seems to be more common in reliable sources around the world. For example, take any article from CNN.com like this one and the date stamp when it was updated is in the cardinal numeral instead of the ordinal numeral. Any further proposal on this issue should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Apology
I did not know these things, I will now read the guidelines before requesting any of these controversial topics. I deeply Apologize, please forgive me. Thanks! Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, there's absolutely no need to apologise, @Jishiboka1: it can take a while to get to grips with such conventions. The best thing is to read, understand, contribute, even argue a different point of view. Kiwipete (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
