Jump to content

Talk:1901

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 15 January 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Heading

The following statement in the heading couldn't be more incorrect and I was unable to edit it: "1901 is the first year of the 20th Century." Last time I checked, it was the second year of the 20th Century. How does one edit the heading to accurately reflect reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killersgt (talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

The year in topic layout on this page is one of three versions. I seek opinions before making them all the same; see comment on my talk page BozMo(talk)

British protectorate

Nigeria is mentioned to become a british protectorate in both 1900 and 1901. Anyone has idea which one is correct...? --Ningyou

Licence plate

The 2005 licence plate currently illustrating the article looks very little like those of 104 years earlier. Too bad we apparently don't have an illustration of a plate from that era at present, but I don't think this illustration is particularly relevent. I'd as soon remove it from this article. Comments? -- Infrogmation 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format

[See: Talk:1950#Format. -Wikid77 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]

04-Jan-2008: Many or most year-articles in "1900-1999" once again have those month-calendar images re-added, although they have been removed repeatedly by prior editors. The total of 12 monthly calendars generate over 385 new wikilinks (per year) or 385*100 = 38,500 wikilinks to repeat the calendar display, which had already been provided by the "link will display full calendar" at the top of each article. Also those month-images are crowding the article text, causing numerous large text gaps in the auto-wrap of text. The intent of wikilinking is to connect to other articles for further details, so that information does not need to be repeated within each related article. The rampant trend of "boxifying" another article, such as a 12-month calendar, to be repeated into each related article as navboxes is overlinking and generating millions of spamlinks into the Wikipedia page-link database. In the case of "1900-1999" those month-calendars alone generate 38,500 wikilinks into the page-link database. I am returning to the original design of wikifying the year-articles to only link to the full-year calendar, using one wikilink. For days not described within year-article events, the full-year calendar will provide the 385 extra wikilinks (such as "2 April"). Please help by removing any month-calendar boxes in any of those year-event articles, as has been done by other editors previously.

Discuss at Talk:1950#Monthly calendars overlink or crowd. -Wikid77 12:33, 4 January 2008

The world celebrates the start of the 20th century

not true, the 20th century is only held to be so by the christian world, the muslims and the buddhists didn't celebrate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.202.4 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American League

There should be a reference to the American League (baseball) beginning play in 1901. Jny 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's for 1901 in baseball & 1901 in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"regarded by some"?

"The world celebrates what is regarded by some as the start of the new century." That phrasing seems to me rather odd. Objectively speaking, it was the start of a new century, was it not? Or does anyone seriously dispute that? And if so, on what grounds? If it simply means that not everyone in the world uses the Gregorian calendar, then we should clarify. Aridd (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively speaking, it was the start of a new century, was it not.
no, that's a rediculous statement "objectively" everday is a new century and year depending on where you count it from.
should we also clarify the fact that not everyone uses the muslim calender or the buddhist calender or the discordian calender, or the subgenii calender. come on have some perspective... how many calenders do we have to name before it is understood that time is relative and i don't just mean in the einstein sense i mean in the cultural sense also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.202.4 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSS SOS

The page says:

"* December 12 – Guglielmo Marconi receives the first trans-Atlantic radio signal in Newfoundland, Canada; it is Morse code for the letter "S.""

It's been suggested Marconi actually only heard static & mistook it for a Morse sign... With that in mind, at least a fn ref saying so appears to me warranted. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this 1901 or 1900?

I just noticed that as of the 10:22, 1 February 2015‎ edit this article (1901) - begins with the line "Year 1900 (MCMI) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display calendar) of the Gregorian calendar and a common year starting on Monday of the 13-day-slower Julian calendar. This was the first year of the 20th century."

Now, I don't edit on Wikipedia, so I am not going to edit this, but I will just bring this to your attention. I am assuming this is an error, but I don't want to edit in case this is some super secret Wikipedia thing about labeling Year n with a value of n-1 (not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't know protocol). 99.230.243.1 (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1901 and computing, does it belong here?

The section Significance of 1901 for modern computers seems out of place on this page and inconsistent with other WikiProject Years articles. I suggest it be moved to the page Time formatting and storage bugs. Maestroso simplo (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1901. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1901&oldid=1195876125"