Talk:New Year's Day

Untitled

The topic of this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

Merger with/to/from New Year's Eve

Discussion from both articles should go here.

I've suggested this merger because so many New Year's events start before midnight NYE (New Year's Eve), occur at the stroke of midnight, and continue during the early hours of NYD (New Year's Day). I'm not a strong advocate of merger, although I think it probably should be done. I am a strong advocate of cleaning up the duplications between the two pages. The third article, New Year, should anyway be considered. --Mark Adler (Markles) 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe some sort of navigation box?

The New Year
New Year's Eve	New Year	New Year's Day

--Mark Adler (Markles) 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, things shouldn't be divided into so many groups when one is sufficent in covering them all. Steven 1:00, January 1, 2006 (UTC) PS. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Merger with New Year

Perhaps this page should be merged with New Year? — Monedula 23:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

• I kinda agree --Navidazizi 02:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that they should be merged. This article is about January 1st in the Gregorian calendar, and the New Year article is about all the different New Year celebrations in different calendar systems. This article, especially, needs to make it clearer what it is about. Also, the information in the "New Year's Day" article that is about non-January 1st New Year celebrations should probably be removed, but rather than just a "See also" at the bottom, there should be a specific note at the very top of the article that says something like: "This article is about January 1st in the Gregorian calendar. For all other New Year celebrations, see the New Year article." gK ¿? 06:12, 2 Jan 2005

THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT TRADITIONS (one a party night, one is a bank hol (at least in the UK))Medscin 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposal to merge the two articles. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day are two distinct items. There are things that happen on New Year's Eve that have no connection to New Year's Day Harry Hayfield 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. They're two different days, for crying out loud! Matt Yeager 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the idea. Granted, they are 364/365 days apart, but the holidays are tied because they are one day after the next. That's like suggesting that there shouldn't be an article about the weekend because Saturday is the end of the week and Sunday is the start of the week. It shouldn't be merged with the New Year topic. That has nothing to do with the holiday, but what cultures celebrate their New Year. Rosh Hashanah has nothing to do with New Year's Eve or New Year's Day. The topic name should be changed to something other than just New Year. 05:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not agree to a merge, Consider, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day or all hallows eve (Halloween) and all Saints Day. While each is linked to the other, they are still two different days. Each eve and each day has its own unique meaning. a Seperate listinfg is need to explain each , G Hall Sydney Australia.

Strongly Disagree as they are different. You drink at night, the other is federal. User:Wikipedical 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree, because of reasons above. gtdp ^{([talk]) ([contribs])} 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, two different days! Scottmso 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging the two articles. As others have mentioned, the two articles cover completely different subject matter, and a merge together would do a disservice to both. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The New Year article covers a lot of different celebrations. There's a Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. And besides, Jan. 1 is my birthday. HiFiGuy 02:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees (except the 2nd response) thinks the suggested merger was New Year's Day and New year's eve. I understand why these two articles should not be merged, although there is a lot of duplicated content and that should be sorted out, with reference to the correct article. The suggestion I read was should New Year's Day and New Year be merged and I strongly agree. New Year covers the Gregorian New Year's Day and other New Year Days. For the specific date 1st of January we have January_1 and the Gregorian calendar.

So now (hopefully) we have that clarified this, any objections to a merger? I think the correct title New year's day too? --Pnb73 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditions.

How about mentioning 'first footing', the tradition of a tall man with dark hair going out just before midnight (the 12 o'clock at the end of New Year's Eve) with a lump of coal, dry bread, etc to bring in good luck to the household after the stroke of midnight?

Changing Something, explaining here

"It is still celebrated as a holy day on January 14 by those who still follow the Julian calendar such as followers of some of the Eastern Orthodox churches known as Old Calendarists."

That is not NPOV. That is taking the point of view of someone who follows the Gregorian calender. New Year's Day is celebrated on January 1 by followers of the Julian Calender, but it is January 14 in the Gregorian Calender. The wording is incorrect.

I am changing it to as follows: "It is a holy day to many of those who still use the Julian calendar, which includes followers of some of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and is celebrated thirteen days later on January 14 of the Gregorian calendar due to differences between the two calendars."

I believe that the new wording is more neutral. Bsd987 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you reread your change, I don't think that the mere act of following the Julian calendar or not will make your New Year's Day holy (ok, so all of those followers, to my knowledge, are Eastern Orthodox). What I'm getting at is that regardless of whether you follow the Julian or Gregorian calendars, New Year's Day is still holy to the Eastern Orthodox. (And other folks? They can be added, too.)

Perhaps it could be changed to "To followers of the Eastern Orthodox religion, January 1 is the day to celebrate the feast of the Circumcision of our Lord. The actual day that this occurs may differ depending on whether a church follows the Julian or Gregorian calendars, but is always ('January 1' or 'a week after Christmas.')" (We might choose to end that sentence with the latter because more people understand that for some Eastern Orthodox, Christmas is in January.)

New calendar churches, like the Orthodox Church in America, for example, celebrate it on Gregorian January 1, but Old Calendar churches, like ROCOR, celebrate it on Julian January 1.

HiFiGuy 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

---

January 14 doesn't belong here

I think we need to remove this, because the article is about 1st January of Gregorian calendar - this is stated in the very first sentence. January 14 has it's own article: Old New Year. It's better to refer to it somewhere in a separate section. —DmitryChestnykh (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---

HAPPY NEW YEAR ON MON JAN 1, 2007.

It's 19:42 on Sat Dec 30, 2006 in Santiago(City approx 10 mins drive NE of Cordon),Isabela(Province approx 8 hrs NE of Manila,Metro Manila),Philippines. My site is at (somewhere)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS 2006/2007.

Er ok... It's already the New Year here Nil Einne 02:30, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Happy New Year =) (its 1:17 1st Jan 2007 here) (= Ben Hamid =) 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing reference for New Year's resolutions

A note has been included to cite a reference for the most common New Year's resolutions, yet there is no corresponding note on the separate article New Year's resolutions. Either both articles should cite a source for this, or niether. I suggest that a reference should be included, but wouldn't know where to find one, as it seems to be more "common sense" but would require some sort of poll to verify. Sroc 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs references! Archtransit (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Globalize

As the article is entitled "New Year's Day" and not January 1 it ought to include the various new years of the world in different religions and cultures. Of course the biggest component would be January 1 as new years in the calendar mentioned, but that doesn't preclude other definitions (which would be details in various sections). As in Christmas the day itself doesnt limit to a (West)-euro-centric bias.

Granted i see the link to "New Year" it is still POV to say there is simply one "New Year's Day"Lihaas (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Holiday articles

I've been concentrating on articles connected with the holidays. Join me if you possibly can in trying to improve them, make improvements to my improvements. This lousy t-shirt (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 213.7.221.159, 1 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There where it says Greece, it should say Greece and Cyprus, because both countries have the same traditions.

213.7.221.159 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New Year's Days in other calendars

attempted to remove bias 206.169.93.118 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg

Because I'm sure someone else has noticed the ceiling fan picture for File:Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg, the image at Commons has been fixed and protected. There's just a lot of revisions before Commons catches up with the current non-ceiling fan picture. No need to complain here nor there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs editing

The first paragraph in the History section is weird. How does a depiction of someone looking in two directions at once prove he's a pagan? Also, Janus is "pagan" in relation to what? Anyway, the grammar and sentence structures read like they were written by a committee unfamiliar with grammar but full of opinions. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoever did the edit - thanks. Reads more professionally now. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sunday holiday's effect on Monday?

The article seems not to address what happens when New Year's Day falls on Sunday (as it does this year), e.g. whether businesses and government functions are generally closed on Monday Jan 2. Bo99 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Re Jan 1st falls on Sunday.

I imagine U.S. (maaybe other World nations too?) Suspend Federal services on Monday in celebration of New Years Day(i.e Postal services?) No mention in article of what effect this has on Public Services!Thanks!Eddson storms (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Roman festival

could use more sourcing and elaboration. Variants of January Kalends redirect here rather than January 1 because of its importance as a holiday, but that could use more fleshing out. — LlywelynII 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

New Year's - bad punctuation?

The following discussion 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.

---

Hello fellow Wikipedians, and happy New Year!

I see that the page currently says New Year's Day is alternative called "New Year's". While it's accepted practice to describe things "belonging" to the New Year this way, e.g. "New Year's Celebrations" - I'm not aware of it being common practice to use "New Year's" by itself as a noun. There's an interesting blog article on the Grammarly web site supporting my perception. However, I have not done an extensive source survey and I may be missing a regional practice? For now I'll make an edit, though I would not be surprised if it gets reverted!

Cheers.-The Parson's Cat (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The term has been in the article for several years, and its removal has been undone multiple times in the last few days. Meters (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no record of a discussion here. Perhaps there is a need for one? Is there an argument based on WP:V or WP:COMMONNAME? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've created a Request for Comment (RfC) below. Perhaps we can all carry on the dicussion there? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of the form "New Year's"

In addition to New Year's Day and New Year, should this article include the form New Year's? (Apparently, there have been a few conflicting edits over recent days, and it would be good to build a consensus.) The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree based on WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

1. The RFC is malformed. I believe you intended to ask if New Year's should be removed, not New Year
2. We don't need a formal RFC to reach consensus on every issue that ends up on the talk page. It was less than one day after the issue was raised that the RFC was started and there had been no substantial discussion as yet to the thread that had been opened. I simply made the comment that you had restored a change from the long-standing version of the article. Normal procedure is to leave the article in the original state while discussing the change. As it happens, I think that New Year's should be removed. I agree with your comments elsewhere that it is applied to New Year's Eve rather than New Year's Day. Meters (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

   The form should indeed be New Year's - not sure how that happened. Adjusted above accordingly. The Parson's Cat (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• "New Year's" is a term in use but there are two problems with including it. First, it is not always used synonymously for New Year's Day - it is also used for the New Year season, e.g. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. Second, it is a colloquial shortening, and therefore not encyclopedia tone. The term "New Year" suffers the first of these problems also - it is also used either for the New Year season, or for the early part of a year (beyond just New Year's Day). So I think both terms should be removed from the opening sentence. If an editor thinks the terms should be discussed in the article and has reliable sources etc., a new section called "Naming" or "Terminology" or some such could be added. Nurg (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• No per Nurg. The term is slang. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• The Grumpy Hacker (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC): YES the "New Year's" form should be included, at least as long as the "New Year" form is included (the latter being the only other form ever mentioned in the article, although I have personally never heard "New Year" used for New Year's Day in real life), for these and other reasons:

1. While "New Year's" is possessive, the object of possession is not required for it to be proper English as it can be implied by context. The very blog article referenced above (on grammarly.com) states this explicitly.
2. I disagree about the WP:V grounds because many, many wikipedia articles purposely neglect to include references/citations in their introductory section even if the information is not repeated (and sourced) later.
3. I disagree about the WP:COMMONNAME grounds because, the way I see it, that guideline is reason/grounds to include the "New Year's" form, not exclude it. Also, that guideline generally applies only to repeated, frequent uses of the same name, not a single AKA instance--the point of which is to include all well-known AKAs.
4. I disagree with Meters's point 2 above both on substance--as I contend the "New Year's" form should not be removed--and semantics--as I believe due to the inordinate number of removals and restorations the RFC has become necessary.
5. I disagree with Nurg's point about it being non-exclusive to New Year's Day because this article is not about those other things and mentioning it here does not confuse or cause a reasonable reader to think this form is exclusive to New Year's Day.
   1. Furthermore, I believe the form "New Year" to be much more commonly used to refer to the new year, not New Year's Day.
6. I disagree with Roxy's point about it being slang as a reason for removal because it is not slang it is colloquial (and non-vulgar) and there are plenty of colloquialisms throughout Wikipedia, many/most of which are informative.
7. In my personal experience, I have never heard anyone ever refer to New Year's Day as "New Year," but I did not attempt to remove this form from the article simply because of that; likewise, just because someone has never heard the form "New Year's" is insufficient reason for removing this form from the article.
   1. Wikipedia is here to inform, and users turn to it for information; if you read something in a Wikipedia article you have never read before, you should think about this before assuming it is a mistake and removing the info without factual reason to do so.
   2. Wikipedia, even the English version, is multi-national and multi-cultural. While I myself have never heard anyone use the form "New Year" for New Year's Day, that does not amount to sufficient reason to delete it; likewise, it may be the case many people have heard the form "New Year" but have not heard the form "New Year's" but that does not amount to sufficient reason to delete the latter.
   3. If anyone is able to use "New Year" in a complete sentence in place of New Year's Day I'd sure like to hear it...

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.

Mixed date convention - propose sticking with MDY as in article introduction and infobox

The introduction and infobox have an established convention of using MDY date formats. The rest of the article is mixed. I have gone through the article and added as many "date" templates as possible to try to create consistency in line with WP:DATES and MOS:DATEUNIFY. If you think that the MDY convention is wrong, please feel welcome to discuss this here.

Please do not delete the "date" templates - if there is a need to change them to another format, this is now easy to do with a global search and replace on the whole article text.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't care which version the article uses and I'm not going to go back in the history to see which was used originally,. Did you check or did you just arbitrarily pick one? There was no justification for you to have switched from BC/AD to BCE/CE against MOS:ERA or to have linked the various days, months and years against WP:DATELINK. I am removing those changes again. Meters (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The point is that there was originally a mix of formats for the date. The 1 January/January 1 is the main issue here. I'm happy to see that you've kept these changes and happy to take your correction on MOS:ERA. (There were a variety of styles here.) When you made your original revert, you broke the rest of the edits and disrupted the RfC tag - I felt that this was disruptive, but also not what you intended. No dates were linked - that's not what the Date template does. The date template is simply a way to automatically format dates in a consistent way. The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no mixture of AD/BC and BE/BCE at all. You introduced all of those changes yourself. You also apparently decided arbitrarily that the article should be MDY format. Again, did you verify that that was the format that the article had originally been using? You also overlinked dates and added completely unnecessary date templates (it does nothing to dates that are already in the correct format or are in formats that the template does not recognize). Some of your changes may well have been been useful but I didn't want to wade through every change you made. Per WP:BRD when you make a change and it is undone it is up to you to discuss the changes on the talk page and get consensus.

And could you please explain why you are "happy to take your correction on MOS:ERA" here, but felt compelled to give me a level 2 vandalism warning for the same edit [1]. I've made no other edits to this article that that warning could possibly be for, so it is clearly for the same edit. My WP:AGF is done. Meters (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which are duly noted. I am sorry if I have caused you offence. I do feel that the MDY format was already prominent in the article, and if you look at the article's history, it was the original convention used when the page was first created.The Parson's Cat (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, the overlinking of dates was not from you edit. Struck. 22:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Prior to PCs changes the article was predominately in DMY (with a mixture of of MDY and YYYYMMDD) - The dates used the most in an article should always be whats used, We should never switch from one format to another, As stated the article was 70-80% in DMY so therefore DMY should continue to be the main format here. –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

About the origin of 1st January...

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Segeda

"According to the Periochae,[1] in 153 BC, the Roman Senate changed the first day of the consular year to 1 January in order to allow consul Quintus Fulvius Nobilior to attack the city of Segeda during the Celtiberian Wars.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.122.145 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020

Please remove "India" from the picture of countries that do not celebrate New Year's on 1st January. Indians do celebrate New Year's on the stroke of midnight of 31st of December. Thank you, Regards. Aman Sinha Aman3754 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Mesopotamia...

From the article...

History​[edit source]

Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) instituted the concept of celebrating the new year in 2000 BC and celebrated new year around the time of the vernal equinox, in mid-March.

From me...

Mesopotamia was a region, not a political entity. There was no unified political control over the region of Mesopotamia at that time, and separate political entities within the region did not all institute the celebrating of new year in 2000 BC.

Thibeinn (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Russia

Hi @John Maynard Friedman:,

Regarding Russia, as the article was recently rewritten it now appears that Russia converted to the Gregorian calendar at some point in the 1100's. Please see the following article:

Russia's Difficulties

I could find no sources to support this edit about Russia converting to the Gregorian calendar in the 1100's. Unless you can find supporting evidence/ sources for this edit about Russia's conversion date and insert these into the article, I would ask if you could please re-edit the article to reflect sources such as the one above on this.

Thanks,

Silly-boy-three (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If the article actually says that anywhere, then certainly remove it. My edit just said that the Eastern Orthodox countries adopted the Gregorian calendar in the first half of the 20th C. Russia was 1917, Greece 1923 (I think, would need to check), that's it.

But maybe Russia adopted 1 January in the 1100s?, which is something else entirely.

AFIK, the only case where there was a simultaneous transition to 1 January as New Year's Day and transition from Julian to Gregorian was in England, Wales, Ireland and the Empire. As a general principle, adoption of the Gregorian calendar is irrelevant to the start of year question. See also Old Style and New Style dates. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Silly-boy-three: The only reference to Russia in the article that I can find is at New Year's Day#Acceptance of January 1 as New Year’s Day, which says that it adopted January 1 as NYD in 1725. I don't see any reference to 1100? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Happy new year! Reading the New Year’s Day page, I noticed some straightforward grammatical and stylistic issues that I thought I ought to bring to the editors’ attention:

1. In the section “Great Britain and the British Empire”, the second paragraph refers to “leaped years” (sic). This should, of course, be “leap years” instead:

therefore, change “leaped years” to “leap years”.

2. The last two sentences of that same paragraph begin with numbers written out in digits (not words). As it is not customary to start sentences with digits, I would suggest the following changes:

(a) change “1800 and 1900 …” to “The years 1800 and 1900”; and (b) change “2000 was …” to “The year 2000 was …”

3. That entire paragraph is in parentheses. This is unnecessary. Therefore, I would suggest deleting the unnecessary parentheses as follows:

(a) change “(By 1750…” to “By 1750…”; and (b) change “both calendars.)” to “both calendars.”

4. In the first paragraph of the section, the parenthetical statement “(except in Scotland, 1 January since 1600)” constitutes a long and awkwardly worded break in the flow of the sentence in which it is contained. I would suggest replacing it with “(except in Scotland)“, followed by a footnote linking to a source explaining Scotland’s switch to starting the year on January 1 in 1600, such as <https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/record-guides/old-parish-registers/change-in-calendar>. In other words, I am suggesting the following:

change “(except in Scotland, 1 January since 1600)” to “(except in Scotland)“, followed by a footnote linking to the source <https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/record-guides/old-parish-registers/change-in-calendar>.

Should you wish to discuss any of my suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me: [redacted] 107.159.11.244 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I completed requests 1 through 3 above, but I'm not big on footnotes, so I'll leave that to someone else if that should be implemented. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Scotland exception done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, now  Done. Closing. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Collaboration at its finest, good job colleagues - FlightTime (open channel) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: remove the "Related to" from the infobox

As far as I can see, the "Related to" block is just a magnet for nationalistic edits. I can't see what it contributes since there is a whole section on other New Year's Days. Can anyone offer an NPOV reason to keep it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)