Talk:New Year's Day

message: :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)
thread_title: Merger with/to/from [[New Year's Eve]]

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Citing reference for New Year's resolutions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Holiday articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 213.7.221.159, 1 January 2011 

message: attempted to remove bias 206.169.93.118 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New Year's Days in other calendars

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Needs editing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sunday holiday's effect on Monday? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re Jan 1st falls on Sunday. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Roman festival

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Year's - bad punctuation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC about the inclusion of the form "New Year's" 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/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)
thread_title:  About the origin of 1st January... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mesopotamia... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Scotland exception done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, now . Closing. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Collaboration at its finest, good job colleagues   - FlightTime (open channel) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: remove the "Related to" from the infobox