From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Time (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment[edit]

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
Yamara 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

January source[edit]

I think there is some useful info to be gained from here: . I have heard several stories about whether it is in the public domain, though.

Other names[edit]

I just wonder wether i should enter arabic names for each names or not Eblis 18:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. However, there are two traditions of naming the mouths of the Gregorian calendar in Arabic: the Egyptian and Maghrebi names are just versions of the Latin names, whereas the eastern names are based on the Syro-Babylonian tradition. Turkish month names are a mixture of both of these and some Trukish traditional names. It might be good to have a January in other languages section. However, a good few of these will just be different renditions of the Latin names. Gareth Hughes 18:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, I seriously question whether Charlemagne came up with 'Wintarmanoth' since that is an English name and Charlemagne was certainly not English. Can we get a source on that one? (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Point of view straw poll[edit]

I have spoken with Laurel Bush about the edits made to this article. I am concerned that they are POV. The latest edit at time of writing was mostly a reordering of material. The reordering was, in effect, the promotion of material relating to the Zodiac and paganism, and the demotion of material about the Roman historical origins of the month. I feel that the reordering of material in this way is POV as the concept of January comes from Roman tradition, and actually has little meaning in the Zodiac and paganism (which use alternative ways of dividing time). Please can contributors here voice there opinion so that we can reach a consensus on this.

I refer to this diff.

Gareth Hughes 13:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although the Gregorian calendar is a fully solar form of Roman calendar 'first month' does not of itself give seasonal or zodiacal position to January. I would agree the pagan Imbolc is considered better as an event than as a division of the year. Laurel Bush 13:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC).
My point is this: this article is about January. The relationship of this month to other calendars is secondary. That means that zodiac and wheel of life should go at the bottom of the article. January is not a sign of the zodiac or part of pagan reckoning. To promote these issues to the top of the article is to introduce bias into the article. Gareth Hughes 18:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How else do we define January's position in the solar year? I do like the article's current second sentence, with refernces to both astrological and astronomical perceptions. Laurel Bush 14:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).
However, astrological divisions of the zodiac are much more regular (each having 30 derees) and rather more fixed than are the astonomical (which shift second-by-second with respect to the solar year). Laurel Bush 17:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).
Romans seem to have been fixated on the (northern hemisphere) vernal equinox and perhaps January (and other Gregorian/Julian months) can be can positioned in reference to this equinox? Laurel Bush 18:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).
I'm not sure that fixated is the right word: it's just important. The older Roman calendars began with March, and Julius Caesar wanted to get his Julian calendar to fix the northern vernal equinox to 25 March. There are a few possibilities regarding how that date seemed so right to the Romans for the equinox. Perhaps, centuries before, the equinox was set to 1 March, so that the calendar began with equinox, and inadequate science and corrupt politicians caused the move to later in the month. I think a better explanation would be that the calendar began on the full moon before the vernal equinox (suggesting that the calendar was originally lunisolar). The months of January and February were late additions to the calendar. It seems that there was a uncounted wintertime between the full moon after winter solstice and the full moon before vernal equinox. There is also suggestion that the Roman purification rituals (Februaria) occurred at the beginning of winter originally. Gareth Hughes 18:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I guess traditionally focussed is beter than fixated. Sorry. Laurel Bush 12:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC).
January and the Gregorian year begin approximately ten days after the Capricorn solstice? (Capricorn here is a reference to the sun’s latitudinal position.) Your speculation about the original timing of March 25th does create a calculation which would put the date into a waxing phase of the moon. I believe Passover is similarly timed, and so was Easter in the Celtic Church. Laurel Bush 12:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Monthlong Events?[edit]

Aren't there any other mothlong events for January other than 'soup month'? I think I've heard of more before. -- Raimu

January 1st as beginning of year[edit]

"Although March was originally the first month in the old Roman Calendar, January assumed that position beginning in 153 BC when the two consuls, for whom the years were named, began to be chosen on January 1. The reason for this shift of the new year into the dead of winter was to allow the new consuls to complete the elections and ceremonies upon becoming consuls, and still reach their respective consular armies by the start of the campaigning season."

May we have some materials to back up these points please. Imboot 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing the month template[edit]

Discussion needs to take place to determine if the calendar template on this page needs to be changed. While it would be helpful to change the template to a self-updating one, there seems to be dispute as to whether the calendar should be yearless. I believe that the current format is good and if we are going to have a calendar-looking thing, it should be a valid calendar and might as well be for the current year. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The current calendar is not according to international standards (ISO 8601), where week starts on monday, not sundays. It may be possible to use this calendar template (it has week numbers (in accordance with ISO week date) Nsaa (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

January this year

January 2018
Week Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
W01 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

W02 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

W03 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

W04 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

W05 29 30 31 01 02 03 04

February this year

February 2018
Week Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
W05 29 30 31 01 02 03 04

W06 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

W07 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

W08 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

W09 26 27 28 01 02 03 04

November this year

November 2018
Week Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
W44 29 30 31 01 02 03 04

W45 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

W46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

W47 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

W48 26 27 28 29 30 01 02

See {{CURRENTCALENDAR}} and {{ISOCALENDAR}}. The first one gives Nsaa (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2018
Week Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
W26 25 26 27 28 29 30 01

W27 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

W28 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

W29 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

W30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

W31 30 31 01 02 03 04 05

Soon the first one will give the current month no more. It's to be deleted. The second defaults to the current month now. JIMp talk·cont 04:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Old expression "January/May romance" (or similar)?[edit]

Isn't there an old expression, signifying that one partner in a romantic relationship is much older than the other? (Also there's "winter-spring relationship", isn't there? And if so, would it be worth mentioning under a subsection headed something like "Sayings related to January" as a cultural/historical thingie? Just a thought.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

List of coincidental dates[edit]

Most month articles, including this one, feature a long and exhausting lede paragraph about how the month's days of the week compare to other months ("January in common years immediately before other common years begins on the same day of the week as April and July of the following year...") which read as if someone has just stared at their calendar and written down some prosaic coincidences. An IP recently moved the September content out of the lede for being "long and not really important". Is it perhaps better to just cut it across all month articles? --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I made the move (just looked at September), as the paragraph looked disproportionately long and only of minor importance, compared to the rest of information. Personally, I think it would be reasonable to further trim this down (at least I do not know in which context particularly this is important). Overall the article for September still looks very messy (i.e. illustrations follow an extremely long bullet list; US observances go before anything else; etc), and some restructuring/tidying up is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

With no objections, nor reaction to me cutting the paragraph from January a few weeks ago, I'll go ahead and remove this from the month articles that still have it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


I notice that when you click the link for "Ianuarius" it explains that Juno is actually the source of the name January, not Janus. It says the same thing on the Janus page. I am not comfortable resolving this, but I think there needs to be some sort of agreement between the pages.

Hoff0839 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. I've changed it. I can't verify the (offline) sources used at Ianuarius and Janus, so I've added a Template:CN tag. An older version of the Ianuarius article suggested that it might also be from the masculine of Diana, but that never got a source, so it's probably scuttlebutt. Grayfell (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I read a few snippets on the Diana stuff too. I think your choice of revision was the right one, with something so ancient, noting that their are alternative theories seems to be a better route than trying to pick one theory. Hoff0839 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Name Etymology[edit]

The article makes a bold claim that the name comes from the word ianua (door in Latin) "since January is the door to the year and an opening to new beginnings."

This doesn't make much sense, when January was added in the Roman Calendar it was not the first month of the year, nor was it the last. Also there are no sources to back this claim & the word ianua is derived from the God name Ianus which only makes it look more like it's actually derived from God Janus.

The second part of the same paragraph also says "The month is conventionally thought of as being named after Janus, the god of beginnings and transitions in Roman mythology, but according to ancient Roman farmers' almanacs Juno was the tutelary deity of the month.".

There are two problems with this sentence: 1) It makes it look like an absolute truth that the name being from Janus is wrong. 2) It backs that it's actually from Juno, which has only a single offline source and Juno already has a month for her, June.

This whole paragraph should be rewritten and more sources, if possible, be found. So far could not find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An dz (talkcontribs) 02:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on January. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 06:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)