Talk:January 1

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.

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)
 * And things have changed. Sources are now required.  It makes sense. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2020 (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)
 * I don't understand what you are asking for? Could you please explain? If you want something added to the article, you need to provide a citation. Deb (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I interpreted Mepf's question as a virtual tag on the Grand Duchy line.  There was no reference provided.   Yomal effectively challenged it above, as well.   In the spirit of the grand cleanup, I've removed it as an unsourced entry. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 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 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)
 * January 1 → January 1st
 * January 2 → January 2nd
 * January 3 → January 3rd


 * 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. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023
Could you add Ali Maâloul, the Tunisian footballer his year of birth was 1990, to (Births)? and my source is: 102.11.121.209 (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information
Haruo Nakajima is incorrectly listed as having died in 1929, rather than being born. I can't seem to edit the page myself. 96.245.80.164 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've fixed the entry. Kiwipete (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024
1500 – Portuguese explorer Pedro Álvares Cabral discovers the coast of Brazil.[12] not the correct date, he discovered and landed on Brazil on the April 22nd 1500, as referred on other articles / languages. Oliveira82 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

— Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 13:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You appear to be correct and I've removed that entry. Deb (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Deb -- Please ensure you close requests that have been responded to. (You probably know this and just forgot, which I get...) Thank you for carrying it out, though! :)