Talk:World calendar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Shire Calendar
Didn't JRR Tolkien publish this very calender earlier? He included it one of his books (which i don't remember). The only difference between it and the world calendar is that tolkien stuch his extra day in the very middle of the year. Wikipedia has an artical about this... --T-rex 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Shire calendar seems more like a Leap Week calendar like the Symmetry454 calendar proposal than the World Calendar, although the Shire includes "other" intercalary days into the calendar to make it "right" and fails to start on January 1, as the World and Gregorian calendars do. Nhprman 01:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Decimal time
Why do we have 24 hours in a day? No, we have 2 sets of 12 hours. No-one says thirteen o’clock. If you say 13 hundred hours, that’s about 52 days. Why don’t we go metric and have 10 months in a year, 36 or 37 days in a month, 10 hours in one day? Then there would be 100 minutes in an hour, and 100 seconds in a metric minute. Then there’s the millis, micros and picos, etc. Time is 2000 years old and needs an upgrade. -- 03:10, 29 December 2005 MichaelJordan
- Actually base-60 and base-12 in time measurements is a lot older than "200 years". See article decimal time for failed attempts at change. AnonMoos
-
- I'm glad the anonymous comment above now suddenly has attribution. I'm also glad that Michael Jordan Wikis! Note that my edit of "Mike's" post recently was simply to "unbold" the text, which was annoying. I do have to say I find a conversion to decimal time, though interesting, highly unlikely, Nhprman 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Various western countries use 24 actual hours in a day, so there is someone saying (a direct translation of) thirteen o'clock. Also, timetables are often written with 24 hours (possibly to save the space for the AM/PM characters?). Valhalla 14:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS
"The World Council of Churches later laid out requirements any reformed calendar had to fulfill to be accepted by the Christian churches, which include the uninterrupted seven-day week. [citation needed]"
- I do wish the person who originated that quote could find a citation, even if it's offline. The person may have been thinking about the Roman Catholic Church (not a WCC member) which DEFINITELY said (at Vatican II in 1963) that any reform must "retain and safeguard a seven-day week with Sunday, without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that the succession of weeks may be left intact." [1]
- As for the World Council of Churches, in an article noting various attempts of the group to seek a common date for Easter, noted that it opposed breaking up the 7-day week, which the World Calendar does. Here's the link, and the full quote, with a few sentences before and after, for context): Around the same time, discussion was beginning in secular circles especially in Western Europe concerning the possibility of establishing a fixed day for Easter, such as the Sunday following the second Saturday in April, so as to facilitate commercial planning and public activities. In addition, proposals for introducing a new fixed calendar were being advanced, for similar utilitarian reasons. After World War II the context for discussion of such issues changed in several ways. International secular initiatives received little support. The churches were especially opposed to any calendar reform which would break the cycle of the seven-day week. On the other hand, many churches continued to express interest in the idea of a common day, whether movable or fixed, for the celebration of Easter/Pascha." I think this merits mention in the article, and this serves as evidence of the WCC's opposition to blank days, even if it doesn't lay out the guidelines stated in the original notation. - Nhprman List 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
While we're at it, can we find a source for the World Calendar official site statement: "The Holy See (Vatican City) itself had endorsed The World Calendar." [2]
[edit] Realistic
Concerning this edit [3]: It is not planned to introduce this calender anywhere. Useful as it might be, wile there are no actual intentions to introduce it in a wide scale, calling the end of 2006 a "preview" is rather misleading. In light of that I cannot see how my edit can be considered non-NOPV. Also, doesn't the term "preview" imply some kind of intention? — Mütze 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This really reads like an advertisement. Superm401 - Talk 08:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The World Calendar article is ABOUT The World Calendar, an idea. The history section documents misconceptions and incorrect details that have come and gone during the article’s composition. If TWC is a good idea and facts that remain are accurate, its unfinished past potentially has a future. If that tends to sound like promotion (advertising), please specify which portions need review. User:TWCAdirector – 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
