Talk:World Calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Shire Calendar 2 Decimal time 3 BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS 4 Realistic 5 NPOV 6 World Calendar capitalization 7 More problems in Benefits and problems 8 Spelling of intercalary day names 9 Calendar images

[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)

[edit] World Calendar capitalization

Shouldn't the word "Calendar" be capitalized here, even in the article title? This isn't the "World calendar" which implies that the world possesses it already, but the World Calendar, a copyrighted name of a specific calendar. Ive seen it changed a couple of times to a lower case "c" and I believe that is not warranted. Nhprman ^List 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"The World Calendar" is a proper noun. Elisabeth Achelis was very specific about this. The page title should be changed to "The World Calendar", but I have not yet sufficiently studied 'Moving a Page'. The page history should be preserved. Thank you! User:TWCAdirector – 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page is pretty straightforward. I'll do it if there are no objections (the page history will be preserved). Jaksmata 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More problems in Benefits and problems

The Benefits and problems section has several problems. Rather than enumerating opposing viewpoints on the calendar, it only advertises the benefits of the calendar. (Maybe the section should be renamed?) It only mentions "problems" in the context of refuting them, in an essay or debate style.

The "proponents" and "supporters" of The World Calendar are obviously those associated with The World Calendar Association, but the "opponents" mentioned are not referenced anywhere. These opponents are supposedly "religious-based" – from other comments on this talk page it would appear to be the WCC – references to relevant information from that organization should be included in the article.

These "facts" are missing references:

• Opponents point out that intercalary days that are counted outside the usual seven-day week disrupt the traditional weekly cycle.
• The role of leaders of religions' influence on the U.S. government's decision at the U.N. in 1955 not to recommend further study.
• The existence/non existence of a scripture stating "Thou shall not worship two consecutive days in a row" and other pseudo-scriptures (This sounds like original research – unless you're quoting somebody notable, these types of arguments have no place in Wikipedia). In any case, the debate writing style used here is inappropriate.
• Religious-based opponents to The World Calendar object to Sabbath day "drift" that The World Calendar imposes.
• Who are the people with the "religious-based objection" that Sabbath days have to be exactly 7 days apart? (If the answer is the WCC, do they "lack authority," and if so, reference it.)
• Notable arguments in favor of or against The Word Calendar that address the day the earth was created, the inviolability of the seven-day week, and the existence/non existence of a solar system equivalent that defines the man-made week. Again, this looks like original research. Again, the debate writing style used here is inappropriate.

Please keep in mind: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you are a proponent of The World Calendar, I wish you luck, but keep your personal opinions on your own web site and out of Wikipedia articles.

I don't like the idea of deleting large amounts of information from articles, but this section looks like it needs severe pruning. If this is, as I suspect, just somebody on a soapbox, and nobody supplies references for this section, I'll delete the non-encyclopedic content within a few days. Jaksmata 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 203.17.70.161, for helping with this before I got back around to it! I'm leaving on the unreferenced tag for now, but at least it doesn't sound like someone's scolding us for not using their calendar any more. Jaksmata 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of intercalary day names

The correct spelling of the intercalary days of the Worlds Calendar are "Worldsday" and "Leapyear Day" not "Worlds Day" and "Leap Year Day" – see the World Calendar Association web site. I don’t know why they spelled them that way, but that’s how it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaksmata (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Calendar images

A few months ago, I replaced what I thought was a confusing calendar image with a simplified one. The image uploaded by Janezdrilc is unarguably "more concise," but rather than more simple as he suggests, I believe it is more confusing. The image has been added to the article again as an alternate representation of the World Calendar. I'm not going to remove the image twice and spark an edit war, but I am requesting comments from other editors.

I think that the image showing a separate table for each month is easier for an average person to understand, since it resembles traditional calendars as much as possible. On the other hand, the "concise" calendar image breaks tradition by showing days of the week vertically, overlapping months, and using confusing, color-coded footnotes to represent days that the reader has to mentally place into the calendar.

If we really wanted the most concise representation, we could always use something like this oversimplification in C++ format:

Weekday = ? Day == Intercalary : Intercalary :
  ? Month % 3 == 0 : Day % 7 : ? Month % 3 == 1 : Day % 7 + 3 : Day % 7 + 5;

But I think it would be inappropriate likewise.  ;-) Jaksmata 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't contradict removing the lower image of calendar at all. It was my wrong judgement when I replaced the table with picture. I supposed that it is enough understandable, because I know the World Calendar quite well. Now when somebody has setted the new table, I putted the "simplified one" beside, becouse I thought "For those who are not so skilful with calendar is there a "full calendar" table, and for those who are is below "simplified" table. However, I agree the table is easier to be corrected if it's written in C++ than in .png (for example) format. --Janezdrilc 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)