Talk:List of days of the year

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 30 November 2021, see discussion. keep, 13 September 2020, see discussion.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Days of the year This article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.Days of the yearWikipedia:WikiProject Days of the yearTemplate:WikiProject Days of the yearDays of the year articles inactive .GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles

1400 - According to the cited Wikipedia article itself, it wasn't John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter, himself who died on 3 September, it was his eldest son and heir, Richard Holland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.128.64 (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSS AVAILABLE????

• Some entries on these websites seem to totally confuse Julian and Gregorian dates (even converting Julian dates to Gregorian for dates that happened before the
  Gregorian Calendar
  was adopted!).
• Other websites seem to have added events to specific days when the exact day the event actually happened on is not known at all (most of these guesses are placed on the 1st and the 15th of months on these websites).

In short, please check any fact obtained from these type of websites and also check any fact on our own day pages before updating its corresponding year or subject article. --

In the context of anniversaries, converting Julian dates to Gregorian dates for events that happened before the

Gregorian Calendar was adopted as the correct thing to do. In the UK, the first anniversary of something that happened on 2 September 1752 was 13 September 1753. In the context of when things actually happened, though, the dates shouldn't be converted. Perhaps we should stop calling these "anniversary" pages and call them pages of historical events. -- Oliver P.

11:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great page, but the 4-month wide table is wider than my screen and requires scrolling right unless I reduce my default font size (just for this page). The next time someone gets an urge to reformat this page, please consider reducing the table to a 3-month width. --loh (2001-06-26)

Is it ok now? --Koyaanis Qatsi

Wow, that was quick; thanks! I figured it was too tedious to edit only for that, so I wasn't expecting an immediate response. --loh

No problem. It was something quick to do while scanning search results on "euphemism."  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

How about adding 'Holidays' to the template? This is already included for some individual pages. This could include major religious festivals (including saints' feast days) as well as secular ones. For saints in particular, it would be useful to link to the saints' biographies, and in certain cases link to discussion of how saints' days have become major secular events.

I'd also like to have a place to put "not recognized" holidays as well, such as

Formatting

Why are the widths of the Sunday cells in the second column (Feb, etc...) wider then the widths of the other day cells? It makes Feb look squished against Mar and Jan look seperated. I added borders for debugging. Robert Lee

I did a little debugging and still cannot see what is causing the first day of each week in the 2nd month column to be wider then other days. I even tried forcing the cells to a fixed width. No go. They are also not right-aligned. If the pedia messing with the HTML source? Robert Lee

For some reason, there were nbsp tags put before (29) in Feb. Will remove them.

Interestin info and links to this subject at this URL; http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/calendar-reform.html

I can imagine how the name of this page came about, but at this moment it is a bit confusing; at least to a non-native speaker of the English language. Wouldn't it be better to change the name to something like "365 days of the year"? cf. the it: link right now, which is a completely different setup which fits more to the actual title of this article.... Rob Hooft 15:44, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to propose getting rid of the "less condensed format" of the calendar. I can't see what possible purpose it serves, and it makes the page much bigger, and doesn't look very good anyway. It's not laid out like a "real" calendar, since the 1st is always in the first column, and so it's not like it's a helpful reference. Anyone who wants to find a particular date should not have any difficulty using the condensed version. Thoughts? -- VV 21:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments on behalf of keeping the less condensed version in over two weeks, I've gone ahead and axed it. -- VV 21:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's OK for now, but I plan on creating a real calendar. In fact I've already done it for every day. See

mav

01:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of this approach; one would have to replace all 365+ of them every year, no? -- VV 02:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Just 12:

• Template:January calendar
• Template:February calendar
• Template:March calendar
• Template:April calendar
• Template:May calendar
• Template:June calendar
• Template:July calendar
• Template:August calendar
• Template:September calendar
• Template:October calendar
• Template:November calendar
• mav

See

whoa. huge mistake on my part. sorry! this can be deleted... Lockeownzj00 05:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the entry about Shigeru Miyamoto (sept. 25) is a little bit out of place as something important or to be considered as relevant compared to historical entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.52.176.129 (talk) october 1 2005 - 20:20 pm

Please excuse a query from a newbie, but is there any easy way I can a link to our 'Today in New Zealand History' to each anniversay day (like the BBC and others have)? The site is run by professional historians working for the Minsitry for Culture and Heritage so the information is reliable.

Many thanks, Jamie Mackay 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the next day also be presented as well as the past 3 days? -- Cat ^chi? 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why on June 7th, no one else has notcied that the 2007 calendar on this page has the year beginning on a Sunday instead of a Monday? GCW50 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might the reason be that there is no 2007 calendar on that page, are you looking somwwhere other than June 7. --Drappel 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why AS of June 7th, no one else has notcied that the 2007 calendar on this page has the year beginning on a Sunday instead of a Monday? in any event it's fixed now GCW50 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year sign? Glecen (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why this page is called "List of historical anniversaries", when it's basically just a calendar. Why isn't it called "Calendar" of something similar, as it's not really a list..... ??? --217.154.124.195 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Calendar of anniversaries might be a better name. Note the "historical" is redundant also. Jimp 08:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy on which calendar system to use (by default) in the reporting of historical dates in wikipedia articles?
Specifically, should events that occurred before the (gradual) adoption of the Gregorian calendar system be reported in wikipedia articles (unless otherwise specified) as having occurred on the dates according to the Julian calendar in effect at the time of their occurence, or according to the Gregorian date retroactively calculated for that day?
For example, the October Revolution is so-named because it began on the Julian date October 23, though it is discussed in the wikipedia article as having begun on the Gregorian date of November 7 (which is also when it is now officially commemorated in Russia, etc).
On the other hand, the Knights Templar article gives the traditionally understood date of "October 13, 1307" as the beginning of King Philip's persecution of them, without specifying that that is the date according to the Julian system in effect at the time (it occurred on October 21, 1307 according to the Gregorian system currently assumed (in the West, at least) to be the default).
(Please see Talk:Knights Templar#Friday the 13th revisited... and the October 13 talk page for further discussion of this issue).
I imagine that implementing a formal wiki-policy to report all pre-Gregorian dates retroactively according to the Gregorian system would have a wide-ranging impact affecting quite a number of wikipedia articles, but not having such a policy is potentially very confusing and seems quite arbitrary.
So: should this issue be further addressed, or not?
--

Moving discussion of this issue to:

Wikiscient 15:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I feel like there should be a footnote for February 29 noting that this only appears in calenders once every four years. BD2412 T 19:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it might be appropriate to mark February 29 with some kind of footnote, but not to remove it altogether. I have reverted its removal. --188.30.21.176 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I figured a footnote throw off the flow of the graph, so I added it in the box beside February 29. -- Johnson524 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]