Talk:Gregorian calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gregorian calendar article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Gregorian calendar is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Revealing the shape of Gregorian calendar adoption history

When I first read the existing chart I found it confusing, so I've edited a draft-for-comment image of the original programmed chart rendering. I've placed the national adoption dates in order, to reveal a graph shape of history. Reordering reveals a statistically attractive double watershed curve in three sections-- the initial cascade early adoption, the slower progressive adoption period, and the final cascade collapse of the anti-adopters' paradigm. Some version of the previous phrase could be added to the text. This would bring the reader's attention to the effects of historic facts in forming the graph's shape-- facts mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Image:Gregorian_calendar_-_Chart_of_national_adoption_dates_-_after_Wikipedia_(vertically_ordered_&_compressed).png Maybe the original was done that way to save visual space. I'm not sure that's necessary, but if so, I have vertically compressed the draft image to the original's size. The resulting graphic text got more blurred by vertical compression. Is a shorter, wider font available to clean that up in auto-rendering of the chart?

None of the years shown are specified as "OS" in case that was ever an issue, say, in Sweden. Approaching this confusing subject as a non-expert, I would prefer a note declaring that all of the adoption years shown are valid for both calendars.

For consistency, Sweden should be dissected from the Sweden & Finland time line, rendered on a color bar with internal markers at 1700, 1712, 1753, and placed just below Protestant Germany.

Seems like a lot of countries are missing; were they all colonies? Maybe another note should state that.

Milo 07:01, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Calender Switch

Althought most people agree that Scotland changed New Year's Day in 1600 to Jan 1st, there is some dispute over whether or not it also changed to the Gregorian calender, before England did, on that date. This would make sense with Nova Scotia for example but since no one can come to definite agreement about the subject I think that at least the dispute should be given some mention in the article instead of just taking one line. I know this is obviously not the main point of the article but it is a factual moot point.

[edit] Number of leap years starting on a given day of the week

Although the number of leap years per cycles is stated at 97, the allocation to how many started on which day of the week adds up to 98. Huh?

I've reproduced this a couple of ways and so am now confident that the correct information is: Sun, Mon, Tu, ... , Sat respectively 15, 13, 14, 14, 13, 15, 13. So, the only issue was with Wednesday which was stated at 15 and should be 14. I'll correct the main page to so indicate.

The sequence is also symmetrical as I'd expect. It is symmetical about leap years starting on Saturday. The year 2000 is such a year and the arrangement of Gregorian leap years is symmetrical about that year. Karl 20 Oct 2005

[edit] Auto archive

This talk page is getting a bit long. Would other editors agree with the concept of automatically archiving this talk page? If so, I will figure out how to do it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is much too long, so some material should be archived. But I don't know of any way to do it automatically, because the most recent material must be retained, so which material should be archived is arbitrary. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. There are bots that will do the archiving automatically such as User:MiszaBot. An invisible header is placed in the talk page, containing instructions to the bot. It can be set to archive any thread that has not been active in a certain number of days. So is your comment indicating you were not aware of a way to just archive the inactive threads, or were you objecting to the concept of archiving things automatically, and think some kind of judgement about the long term value of a thread should be made? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of those bots. They sound perfect. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've experimented with automatic archiving of my own talk page, and convinced myself I know how it works. If I don't hear any objections by 14 July 14:00 UTC I will set the page to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
First archiving under new system has occurred. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International standard

What is the international standard for the display of a calendar? Does the week begin on Sunday or Monday? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There may or may not be an international standard, but any such standard would be voluntary. No country would be obliged to follow it. Also, it is likely that many countries leave the design of calenders up to individuals. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, how should we handle it here? I've seen some templates with Sunday first and others with Monday first. Seems reasonable to settle on a standard. Would I have to bring it up at WP:VP? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This should be handled the same way Wikipedia handles British vs American spelling and BC/AD vs BCE/CE—both are acceptable and are determined by the first substantial editor. They should not be changed to the alternative without a good reason, for example, an article about the United Kingdom should use British spelling. In all these cases no single Wikipedia standard is possible. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] time step between the Julian-~ and the gregorian-calendar

  • 1) BC43 was the first Year of Julius Ceasar reign when the JULIAN CALENDAR started.
  • 2) Gregorian Reform include the accurateing of the Pope time-lines. It was the second time when accurate the all popes time-lines. (The first big one acurateing was at Nicea Synod.)
  • 3) ("Faitfull") "Venerable" Bede and Dionysius "Exiguus" ("Shortleg"-gimpy-) work hard and made an exact system what cant adulteration. The "week days" & "month days" are just more than 500 years reapeting. That system was investure finaly at 1582 in all europian cauntry. The first user was the clerics after the 1000th year.

Conclusion The Julian Calendar Start not changed. The Gregorian calendar start changed minimum 2 times. This are not equals just before the first correction made of the popes time-line.

  • When somebady Used the "Sassandrian" after Alexandros Dead calendar made 323 year time step/
  • When somebady use the Julian calendar sometimes miss 8 year, sometimes miss (7+8) sometimes miss 40-44 year and this mixtures too. Because the cleric made the accurate calendar and the julan not accurate already. /

TACITUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.164.255 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)