Talk:Dual dating

A fact from Dual dating appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,242 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1582, English letter writers often used two dates on their letters, a practice known as dual dating?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February.

Wikipedia

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

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 ✉ 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I signed up. I would be glad for any advice you have for improving the quality of the article. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article as it stands is redundant

There is already a perfectly good article on Julian/Gregorian dates, so the logic of creating another one is non-obvious. I certainly support a merge of the current content. But what wikipedia does need is a generic article on date conversions and the periods when two dating systems were in force. This didn't just happen in Western Europe and its colonies, it happened in many places around the world.

So the Julian/Gregorian material in this article needs to be edited down heavily and the material in the OS/NS article that is about changes in Asia etc should be moved here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You write:

"There is already a perfectly good article on Julian/Gregorian dates, ..."

which IMO illustrates the need for clarification, whether it's to be in this article or that one, however rearranged. The explanations are not good enough yet, either place. There is still too much confusion between the change to the first of January and the change to the Gregorian calendar. (Damn England and, I think, Wales, for doing both changes in the same year. Had they not, there'd be less confusion!)

Your suggestion about the types of info which should be moved here should be considered. I think I like that idea. --Hordaland (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that there were two independent issues (when the year starts 1 January or 1 March; how to correct for the cumulative leap minute errors), which AFIK is unique to the Europe-and-colonies instance. And I agree that it deserves a good section in the (revised) OS/NS article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference: this listing arose because I was looking at a book that listed hyphenated dates. The need exists for a quick and dirty explanation of why a date has excess digits, and how genealogists and others should show that information in their own documents. For that reason, I do not think we should pare down the Gregorian/Julian info here. This is the bare minimum you need to understand how to treat the dates without having to click around to a lot of listings, which most readers should not have to do. The OS/NS issue deserves in depth study, but WP would also do well to provide a simple explanation directed to a question that I was unable to find an answer for on WP until I made this listing.　　As for moving the Asian content here, I think that is fine, and I would be glad to volunteer to do that if there is a consensus that the information should be moved here, and I am the appropriate person to do it.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the OS/NS article really ought to supply that clear and simple overview, according to the Manual of Style. Once done, that paragraph could be replicated here, as short introduction to the Europe+Colonies change. So maybe the opening paragraph of OS/NS needs work. Otherwise, it seems to me that have a workable compromise. Why don't you go ahead with developing this article along that line (replicating the Asia material intitially). If it is accepted (as I think it will), the Asia stuff can go from OS/NS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try and get to it.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are my initial edits?--Mak Allen (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a world perspective (whereas the OS/NS article can be specifically about Europe + Colonies). So it is important to be consistent - and not get bogged down in the specifics of the European experience.

I think the article is better now but there are still some very complex sentences (particularly the one where everybody becomes older by fiat). I wonder if it would help if we used a country that did the Julian to Gregorian first, and the March - January some time later (such as Scotland, I think?). The England/Wales/America transition provides a very poor illustration as it muddles two issues. I can only say that if we find it so difficult to explain with the benefit of hindsight, no wonder there were "Give us back our 17 days!" riots! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a correction of fact to the above paragraph, Scotland changed the start of year first (1st Jan 1600) and the Julian to Gregorian later (Sept 1752). Spathaky (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence,

...but not in the American colonies in December and August, for reasons that are not yet known,

is trivia. IMO. Is there any reason to care? Is there any reason to expect that these reasons will become known? If so, it needs to be explained clearly enough that even I can understand it. Thanks. :-) --Hordaland (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At most it should be a footnote, but it is better to delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits. However, again due to my reason for interest in this topic, I respectfully disagree. I think this phrase should be included because other genealogists are wondering why some dates are or are not dual dated. I have changed it to a footnote to try to accommodate your objections.--Mak Allen (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that works. A google search will find easily enough. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Hordaland (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Someone has proposed that the article Mixed-style date be merged into this article (so that it becomes a Redirect to this article (or to a section in this). Please indicate support or opposition, with a brief justification. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I oppose this proposal, though I agree that the article in question is redundant. In my view, the term Mixed style date refers specifically to the Julian/Gregorian transition and so the merger should be with Old Style and New Style dates. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on a proposed major change ...

... in the respective content of this article and the Old Style and New Style dates. See Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#RFC on a proposed major change. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus?

The title "Dual dating" suggests a wider subject than is currently covered here.
The article should surely cover all dating systems using two calendars concurrently, such as the Islamic system (today being 10 Ramadan 1531/20 August 2010), Jewish system, the eponymous monarch systems ("in the fourth year of the reign of..." used historically in Britain, and (I believe) currently in Japan), and the Calendar year/tax year/academic year differences. It should also mention the Gregorian/French Revolutionary difference, and the Julian/Gregorian difference in Russian history, which crops up in historical accounts.
Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articles

See Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Duplicate articles (March 2015) -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what date was each year advanced?

This most important fact for most of us non-techs is omitted! I think it was late in March. 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:1F0:5273:3371:5690 (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated and it depends on where you have in mind. See New Year which answers your question. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of dates from historical documents in contemporary documents

The section Dual dating#Use of dates from historical documents in contemporary documents is very confusing, and I think it needs a rewrite, or better still gutting with a redirect to Old Style and New Style dates with the section taking the lead of that article suitable modified followed with examples of how Julian Gregorian dates may be duel dated. See fore example s:Final Act of the_Congress of Vienna/Act I

British Foreign Office British and Foreign State Papers. 1814—1815 Volume II. Compiled by the librarian and keeper of the papers, Foreign Office-London: James Rigway and Sons, Piccadilly, H.M.S.O., 1839. pp. 56–63. Original French.

-- PBS (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bending wp:fork a little, yes, I agree. Wp:be bold and get out your gutting knife! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]