Talk:January 1/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020
The entry "Twenty-five nations adopt Sandford Fleming's proposal for standard time (and also, time zones)" is missing a period at the end. 98.210.124.96 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ thank you. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Great but
This is all helpful and great but will someone please explain how 1 January happens to fall on 1 January? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.91.104 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Future
Should we say about 2007 before it actually comes? There is always the chance that it may not happen on the 1st.
 * No, no future events should be listed. Fabricationary 17:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Amin
Is Idi Amin's birth date (1925) correct? The article Idi Amin seems not to know his exact birth date. - Andres

Copyright expiration day

 * United States - Copyright Expiration Day, celebrating the expiration of the copyright of a year's worth of works of authorship into the public domain. Not celebrated from 1978 to 2018 because of repeated copyright term extensions.

The time interval is probably wrongly calculated. I guess it's 1998-2018, since the act was passed then, so I guess in 1st jan, 1997 there were stuff passing into public domain (at least the celebration could have happened). Using other points of view to calculate the date would probably suggest the theoretical 1948-2018, since if the extension was from 50 to 70 years in 1998 then the works of 1947 went to public domain in 1997, and 1948 became frozen till 2018. Or there's some hidden logic you can explain to me. :-) --195.38.113.129 20:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Queen Victoria entry

 * 1887 - Queen Victoria is proclaimed Empress of India at the first Imperial Assemblage (Durbar) in Delhi.

According to the Empress of India article, Queen Victoria received the title in 1877. Is the above 1887 just wrong, or did something else happen in 1887 related to this? Kingturtle 19:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NYC entries
these entries conflict and/or need better explanations:
 * 1897 - Brooklyn, New York merges with New York City
 * 1898 - New York City annexes land from surrounding counties, creating the City of Greater New York. The city is geographically divided into five boroughs: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island.
 * 1899 - Queens and Staten Island merge with New York City.

Can someone sort this out? Kingturtle 19:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On Jan 1 1898 the County of Queens (including what was formerly Long Island City), becomes a borough of New York City. On Jan 1 1899 a part of the county of Queens becomes Nassau County, and is no longer part of New York City.

On Jan 1 1898 The independent city of Brooklyn becomes a borough of New York City On Jan 1 1898 The Borough of The Bronx, already part of Manhattan County, becomes a part of the City of New York (It becomes a separate county in 1914)

On January 25 1898 the County of Richmond (Staten Island),, previously administered as five separate townships, become a borough of New York City.

All this probably boils down into the entry on January 1:
 * 1898 New York City annexes land from surrounding counties, creating the City of Greater New York. The four initial boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx, are joined on January 25th by Staten Island to create the modern city of five boroughs. - Nunh-huh 06:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Just how many of the births and deaths of people who have biographies on wikipedia do we want to include here? I've myself added several short biographies which have listed their birth and death dates, and am unsure how many, if any, of these comparatively less notable individuals to list on these "this day in history" pages. Second question. Are we supposed to cite specific sources for their birthdays or not? Thanks in advance. Badbilltucker 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any clear policy on this matter (which would be rather a hard thing to do anyway). Since deleting entries appears to be more unpopular, I'd suggest if you come across someone you feel should be on the list, then add them, and if you see someone you feel shouldn't, ignore it. Average Earthman 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I came to this talk page to ask a similar question. From about the nineteenth century onwards the list of birthdays becomes increasingly filled with sportsmen and actors. I'm not saying they shouldn't be there, just that there should be a more even mix of the different activities that people are famous for. I don't know which ones should be removed though, and it would be a lot of effort to go through and find out who all these sportsmen are and retain only the most notable. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no set criteria. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There now does appear to be the criterion that persons are not included in this list (or those of other dates) unless there is an existing WP article about them (which should be linked). Presumably, those articles have sources for the birth and death dates, and these date articles should reflect those sources but need not replicate them. Evensteven (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Future dates
I've removed the last two entries in the "Events" section, which state

2007 - The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) code increase in length from 10 to 13 digits. 2007 - Romania, and Bulgaria join the European Union

It is only November of 2006... the above events have not occured yet. MickeyK 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But they did join... FOUR YEARS AGO. Why not add it? It is an event shure... Plarem (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Old style vs New Style
Is there a policy on whether people born in a country using old style dates should be entered on the old style date or the new style - e.g. Leonid Brezhnev, who definitely warrants an entry somewhere, but should it be under January 1 (new style) or December 19 (old style)? Average Earthman 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know of no formal policy, but it would make a lot of sense to only use NS dates for anyone born on or after 15 October 1582. That way, the same calendric basis would apply to everyone.  Oh, Brezhnev was born 6 December OS = 19 December NS.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 15 Oct 1582 was only the date the Gregorian calendar went into effect where the Roman Catholic Church's reform was accepted. Acceptance dates in Protestant nations varied and took a lot of time; England did not shift until September 1752. Non-Protestant, non-Catholic nations only accepted it as a civil (secular) calendar, many not until the 20th century, and generally out of the influence of increased trade and modern rapid transportation. I think that given the Gregorian calendar's now-widespread acceptance, that it makes sense to enter dates according to its nomenclature. But it also makes sense to indicate the equivalent date of any alternate calendar (Julian or not) where historical usage at the place and time reflects that other calendar. Note the confusion here for Brezhnev, which would be averted with the paired references. And what do we want for George Washington, 22 Feb 1732 (Gregorian), or 11 Feb 1731 (Julian, English-style new year, which began the new year on Mar 25 at that time)? I say one calendar for now, but recognize that there is no one calendar for all time, including in historical references which may be useful. Evensteven (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

National Migration Week?

 * Roman Catholicism - National Migration Week begins (varying official support by the office of U.S. President, not strictly religious)

This entry was listed as a religious holiday. Perhaps if we had the apparently requested and lacking entry on National Migration Week, it would be clearer. I was unaware that the U.S. president sponsored or proclaimed Roman Catholic Church festivals, and had hoped &mdash; probably without good cause or reason &mdash; that the two institutions were separate. At any rate, without some context, this entry made little sense to me, so I pulled it and preserved it here. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation with 1/1, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines
Typing in 1/1 redirect a person to this article. What is the proper way to disambiguate 1/1 from the date and the military unit? Should there be a short template at the redirect page or should an entire disambiguation page be created? Thanks for your input, Rhetth 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since 1/6 redirects to 1st Battalion 6th Marines it seems to me that a redirect from 1/1 to 1st Battalion 1st Marines has that as a precedent. --Drappel 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is lame
Really, it says nothing worthy. Why not just remove it and start with the current second paragraph? Spell out "first", please ... and I see further down that our readers have to see inconsistent day–month and month–day order. Why not use US format throughout? Editors of these articles: please choose "no preference" for your date preferences, so you can easily pick up the inconsistencies. Tony  (talk)  14:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is a mess, and admittedly I have not undertaken cleaning it up as I had promised to long ago. This particular article is the only one that does not fully comply with the template for the date articles (AFAIK).  The opening paragraph is standard across the date articles (  and changing it has never been brought up.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we start a trend then? I'm not accusing you, of course, but it's so lazy to start with a formula like that. I mean, the day before? Not interesting. Obvious. Tony   (talk)  14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. It was something that predated me.  Seemed harmless to me.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. You're talking only about the "The preceding day is December 31 of the previous year."  Yes, that's a bit silly.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jan 1, 2009
Is the Fire in that Nightclub really a noteworthy enough of a event to have on this list? I do not think it is... I know that ~60 people died... but I am not sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.140.148 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed as unsupported. Lacks notability as well.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Holidays and observances
There has been a change moving Christian celebrations to a subpage without apparent discussion let alone consensus. This change seems to make it very difficult for less experienced editors to add additional entries.

Being happy to assume good faith I provide this space for discussion. -- Drappel (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the use of a subpage is not helpful, because people will just add extra celebrations without regard to the subpage. --Drappel (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Drappel. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonia in Eurozone
Why not add the event of the joining of the seventeenth eurozone country on its date pages?

2008 – Malta and Cyprus officially adopt the Euro currency and become the fourteenth and fifteenth Eurozone countries.

It is added there... Why not add:

2011 – Estonia officially adopts the Euro currency and becomes the seventeenth eurozone country.

Plarem (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Minus the reference, of course.  Date pages don't get references.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

On this phrase...
The births and deaths listed on this page are only for people for whom there is a Wikipedia article (no red links and no redirects).

No red links means no one without an article. But what about no re-directs?? Re-directs are simply pages from alternate names, such as William Jefferson Clinton to Bill Clinton. How we refer to someone does not change their birthday. So how is this phrase meaningful here?? What kind of re-direct is being talked about here?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects in this context means a page with a person's name that redirects to a group article (e.g. Harry Styles).  The links should point to a terminal article rather than the redirect and we should be referring to people the way that their article is titled as that's the standard per WP:NAME but the main concern is redirects for people without bios.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

1st January 1950 "Event"
Proposing to reach consensus for adding in the "Article Event section" the following line:
 * 1950 Standard practice uses this day as the origin of the age scale Before Present   M  aurice    C arbonaro     08:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Births
Hello, I read the January 1 and I would like to add a famous person to the Birth section. The person is Eiichiro Oda. he is a japanese manga artist he was born in 1975 and he makes the One Piece Manga to this day. The One Piece manga is the best sold manga in the world. I think he deserves to be on this article

Thank you so much for listening

An anonymous boy

Hello, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.213.219.63 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I read the name of Stephen Bocskai under keyword Birthday on 1th January and I would like to call your attention to the mistake concerning his nationality. Bocskai was not a roumanian prince, but the hungarian leader of the Transylvanian Principality, which was a suverein hungarian community in that years (1605-1606). Subsequently the most appropiate definiton might be: Prince of Transylvania as otherwise it is written correctly on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania#Principality_of_Transylvania.

Thank you for your attention,

Dénes Szilárd Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dénes Szilárd (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nationalities
This edit recently altered the description of the nationalities of a considerable number of people listed in this article. Most changes replace "English" or "Scottish" with "British", or use "Soviet" in place of "Russian" (when the time-frame is right). I would not call any of these changes incorrect technically. But is it nationality or ethnicity that's the target, and does nationality shift with citizenship? Or do we care to be completely technically consistent? It seems to me that it makes more sense to determine in each individual case what the most appropriate designation is. And despite the political union of England and Scotland, even that is not really fused, as strong ethnic distinctions remain prominent among some. For that matter, "British" is a bit of a nebulous term, also referring ethnically to some of the peoples who inhabited the island before the Angles (from which we get "English") came. The Welsh are also distinctive. Why not just leave things as they were here? (Russian to Soviet, maybe, but again, Soviet was a temporary political fusing only, more a reference to the form of government than anything.) Evensteven (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Days of Christmas
Happy New Year!

But what the hell do you think I'm going to do with eight maids a-milking? I prefer the birds. It's not enough with all those maids and birds; the maids had to bring their cows with them. The lawn is a mess. You have to be careful where you step. The house is a mess. I'm warning you--LAY OFF!

Here's hoping you live another 365 days,

Agnes

70.89.177.161 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)