Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Moveable feasts link in the intro points to wrong page

It points to a non-profit group called Moveable feasts when it should most likely point to [Moveable_feast_(observance_practice)]. I would change it, but I can't due to the semi-protect.--2003:69:CD59:F401:84CF:5BBF:4885:E5C (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made that correction. It might need re-correcting because some editor has just moved the feast content without checking links. If that edit gets undone, then my edit will need undoing. Dbfirs 00:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

In response to "currently[when?] 13 days" at the end of the second paragraph, I would recommend adding "(i.e. since the beginning of March 1900 and until the end of February 2100)". Hope that helps.

149.125.250.62 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Church and state

The argument is very simple. Why on earth would the established church and the government decide to use different calendars? Apart from the fact that the claim isn't sourced, it doesn't make sense. 77.103.33.180 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please quote from the article the statement(s) you object to and explain what is wrong with them. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

At the end of 2013 the lead had

The Julian calendar has been replaced as the civil calendar by the Gregorian in almost all countries which formerly used it, although it continued to be the civil calendar of some countries into the twentieth century.

This was a fully sourced stable version. By yesterday the qualifier "almost" had disappeared, although the references are the same as before. Do you know anything about this change? 77.103.33.180 (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why "almost" was removed; the removal was with this edit. Near the end of the last paragraph where "almost" was removed, there is a statement that the Ethiopian calendar is based on the Julian calendar and is still the civil calendar of Ethiopia. Based on the description of the Ethiopian calendar in The Oxford Companion to the Year I agree the Ethiopian calendar should be considered to be a form of the Julian calendar. However, I am unable to find a recent reliable source that states that Ethiopia still uses the Ethiopian as its civil calendar. I would like to see a recent reliable source stating what the civil calendar is in Ethiopia.

Having found a description of the Ethiopian calendar on the website of the Ethiopian embassy in Washington, I've restored the qualifier "almost" and added the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How about adding a List of Countries that Adopted the Julian Calendar

Paris Herouni, a member of Armenia's national academy of sciences, claims in his 2004 text, Armenians and Old Armenia, p. 28, that Armenia adopted "the Julian calendar in 122 AD". Reading that led me to search the web for a list of countries that had adopted it, and estimated dates of when that happened. I could not find that info, and wondered if there would be any interest among editors of adding that as a section to his article, a List of Countries that Used (or Adopted?) the Julian Calendar. This could grow to become more comprehensive than just a few examples scattered through the main text. If folks wanted to do this, and if it grew, perhaps it would end up being split off as its own article. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Churches and Easter

I changed all references to "Pascha" into "Easter". The Greek word Pascha (derived from the Hebrew word Pesach) literally means Easter. It is NOT a theologically separate concept. When speaking and writing in English, let's please stop calling it "Pascha" with regards to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This is sooo incredibly annoying. Pascha is Easter. This isn't rocket science. There isn't some theological reason why it must be called "Pascha" when speaking English. And not all Eastern Orthodox call it that. In Bulgarian, Easter is Velikden. In Serbian, it's Uskrs. In Ukrainian, it's Velykodniy. Likewise, many Catholic and Protestant countries call it a variation of Pascha. In Italian and Catalan, it's Pasqua; in Spanish/Castilian, Pascua; in Portuguese, Páscoa; in French, Pâques; in Dutch, Pasen; in Danish Påske; and in Swedish, Påsk. Pascha is just the Greek (and Russian) word for Easter. That's all there is to it. Skyduster (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Month Numbering

Does the Julian Calendar start on January (Christmas) or March (Easter)? The Quakers use numbering rather than names, and I believe March is the first month so it would be useful to include month number in the table, or rearrange it to start in March.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 19:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nowadays it is almost universal to start the year, either Julian or Gregorian, in January, and to consider January the first month. But over the centuries, in various countries, a variety of different dates have been considered the beginning of the year: December 25 (Christmas), January 1, Easter, March 25 (Lady Day), and more. As for the Quakers, I believe they do (or did) number the months, but follow the local civil authority, so whichever month the local civil authority consider to be the first month of the year gets the number 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Having done more research, I now realise the first month is March, second is April and son on, with February being the 12th month. However in the Julian calendar, months were not named when referred to by Quakers. It becomes a little more obvious when you look at CoE church records where the next year starts after any early baptism or burial records for February. As you can imagine this leads to much confusion with baptism dates often being a year out on family history sites. There is a greet opportunity here to make things more clear!  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 19:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you want to make a flat-out statement that the first month is March. I think that's true for England and the American colonies through 1751, but beginning in 1752 January became the first month of the year. In Scotland I understand they started using January as the beginning of the year in 1700. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see Old Style and New Style dates. Scotland changed start of year to 1 Jan in 1700 1600 but kept the Julian Calendar until the [English] 1750 Act. The text of the Act is given in Old Style and New Style dates#External links (or thereabouts). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes January became the first month in 1582/83, and possibly later in different regions of Britain and Europe. Before then it was March - That's my point, and why this article needs improving. This page of the EN Wikipedia should focus on the Julian Calendar for the English prior to 1582. I suggest adding a month number column (starting with Month 1 as March) so reordering the rows. We can leave post 1582 to the Gregorian calendar article.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 21:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to focus on March as the first month prior to 1582 for two reasons. First, although this is the English Wikipedia, there are a vast number of English-language books, newspapers, and articles that describe events outside of England, Wales, and the American colonies, so the calendar practices in those other places are relevant. Second, it is customary for contemporary historians writing about a place where the Julian calendar was in force to use the Julian calendar but treat January 1 as the beginning of the year, regardless of what beginning of year was in force at the place being written about. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If the question is only about custom in Quaker communities, 1582 would be ok, except that the practice of Dual dating was common for as much as a century on either side of 1750. Otherwise I agree with Jc3s5h, it really is complicated. See Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

On further thought, you must not make an assumption about how Quaker communities reacted to the change in start of year. You need to find evidence of what they actually did rather that what the 'must' have done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the linked article says that Scotland moved New Year's Day to 1 January in 1600. 151.227.23.125 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Thank you for correction. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My questions was only about the Julian calendar. The first month is March. It is that simple! Other countries using other calendars is irrelevant as is the changeover to Gregorian around 1582 (later in Scotland). Although the text of the article does state that the year change is March, a prominent table starting at January is misleading. Month numbers are also important (their use by the Quakers is only an example). Month numbers should be included as part of the article as its important relevant information (including the first month being March and not April which isnt clear).  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 10:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Another important fact about the numbering which is largely overlooked here. The year starts with March, so September is the seventh month (Sept=7), October=8, November=9, December=10. February, being the last month had the adjustment in days. Its a carry over of the Roman numbering.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 13:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Blackburn and Holford-Strevens (2003, p. 6, in the section devoted to 1 January, full citation in the article)

New Year's Day. Although the Romans knew that their year had originally begun with *March, the name Ianuarius is not appropriate to an eleventh month; the New Year festivities seem too well entrenched to have been moved in historical times, and if the first written account o fht e Roman calendar, put on public display in the temple of Hercules and the Muses c.179 BC (see *30 June), had indicated a March beginning, our sources must have told us, such was the romans' interest in their calendar (see II: *Roman Calendar). Although it was not till in 153 BC that the consuls, who gave their names to the civil year entered office on 1 January (having done so on 15 March since 222 BC, and before that on various other dates), and thenn only because of a military crisis, this must have been the true day of New Year, as in medieval Europe, irrespective of the dating system.

Blackburn and Holford-Strevens cover Julius Caesar's reform of the calendar on pages 670–1. There is no mention of a change in New Year's Day, only in the length of certain months and the introduction of the leap year cycle instead of the occasional insertion of a leap month.

So a flat-out claim that March was the first month is just wrong; it was the first month in some countries for some purposes, but January has a stronger claim to be the first month than any other month. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

On Quaker month numbering, if one has an Ancestry.com subscription, one can browse images of Quaker records. If one browses the digitized microfilm for the State of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, Philadelphia Monthly Meeting, Births and Burials 1686–1807, image 100 (which shows 2 pages), one finds "1 mo — 4" in the left margin of the left page, and a little further down the page "1751". The last entry on the left page is "3 mo . . 30" (30th day of 3rd month).

On the right page in image 100, the first entry is "4 mo [illegible] 2 (4th month 2nd day). It continues down to the tenth month, for which the left column reads

10     3
       5
       9
      27
1752  29 [1752 is the year, and is squeezed in; book doesn't have a specific place for the year.]
12th of 1 mo
2 of  2 mo
6th of . .
8
26
27

So the 18th century clerk didn't pay as much attention to putting everything in the same order in every entry as a modern clerk might, but it's plain the year 1751 only had 10 months, because January and February, which would have been in 1751 were it not for the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, were instead part of 1752. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The “Month names” section has “The Julian reform did not immediately cause the names of any months to be changed”. Indeed Quintilis became July, Sextilis became August (and Sept to Dec remained the 7 to 10 months), so the Julian Calendar in 46 to 8 BC was still naming (if not also counting) months from March. The “New Years Day” section adds January 1 as new years day but is this because it is referring to other (Roman) calendars and local customs, not the Julian calendar? It also tells us that for 600 years prior to the switch to Gregorian, (1155 to 1751) the new year started 24 March (i.e. the Julian Calendar) so was the Julian reintroduced?

Early parish (Church of England) records before 1751 show the year changing after 24 March (see Ancestry scanned images for examples), and it is well reported that in 1752, when we changed to the Gregorian calendar the year start changed from 24 March to January 1. This change is the most important difference between the two calendars, yet it gets no mention in the article lead. There are also various other articles describing the month numbering, changeover. The Pope Gregory’s Catholic calendar, introduced 1582, was used by much of Europe from then. This is why there is some double dating between 1582 and 1752. It is not the Julian calendar having two new year dates, but two calendars in use at the same time.

Familyhistory.uk.com website shows Sept to Dec as the 7th to 10th months of the Julian calendar. Also see stevemorse.org (with a parish record image).

What is needed is clarity. All I was asking for is a better explanation about the month numbering, as currently there is none. Also, for 600 years prior to the Gregorian calendar the year changed on March 25. That is the key difference between the two calendars and so important it should up front in the lead section. It is a curtail fact when indexing parish records, and has clearly caused problems in the past with many indexes having two dated entries two months apart! The article is also missing King George II’s “British Calendar Act of 1751” where Britain and America skipped 11 days, so that Thursday 3 September 1752 became Thursday 14 September 1752 and the two calendars aligned. The act also changed the legal start of year from March 15 to January 1. SurreyJohn   (Talk) 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@SurreyJohn:, your phrase "when we changed to the Gregorian calendar" [emphasis added] gives the impression you would like this article to focus on English calendar customs. It doesn't, and it won't. This article is about the Julian calendar all over the world, and in all times from 45 BC on. Some mention of numbering months could be made, perhaps in the "New Year's Day" section (provided adequate sources are cited), but I think trying to give an exhaustive list of how each country and religion within a country numbered Julian calendar months would make the article too long.

I also take issue with "Also, for 600 years prior to the Gregorian calendar the year changed on March 25. That is the key difference between the two calendars and so important it should up front in the lead section." Many countries made changes in the date they observed New Year's Day while they were using the Julian calendar. So the change in the observance of New Year's Day is not a difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars; it is a matter of national or religious calendar laws or customs. England, Wales, and British colonies are the only instance I know of where the switch from Julian to Gregorian coincided with a change in New Year's Day. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Although I agree with Jc3s5h on almost everything, it would be fair to note that the Gregorian calendar article reports that the first month of the new Eclesiastic calendar as published after the changeover was January - though start-of-year is not mentioned in the Bull. So there is more than one example. But equally there is plenty of evidence of at least de facto use of other dates before then, including 25 December, 1 January, 6 January and more. See New Year's Day. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all well and good. But instead of shooting down the idea that the year once began with March, can someone please address why the numbering of the last six months was (and still is for the final four months) off by 2? It's blatantly obvious even to the most casual observer. It needs to be explained. Thetrellan (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See Roman calendar. Basically, the last few months are numbered as if from March because the original Roman calendar, the calendar of Romulus, had only ten months. The next king, Numa, added the months of January and February to the year without renumbering the numbered months. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Western or Latin form of the Julian Calendar has always been displayed as January to December from the late Roman Republic (Roman calendar ~60 BC), through the Roman Empire, Charlemagne (Early Lives of Charlemagne, p. 45, Latin order is the same), medieval monasteries, and the Roman Catholic Church. Even the Court of Henry VIII and Samuel Pepys diary (January 1666) regarded 1 January as New Year's Day while calling the first day of the numbered year, 25 March, Lady Day (March 1661). The Eastern or Greek form of the Julian Calendar used in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) used 1 September as its New Year;s Day since the time of Justinian, but I do not know how they displayed the year. The Russian Empire continued to use 1 September as the first day of its year until Peter the Great changed it to 1 January, at the same time changing the year number from the Anno Mundi Era to the Chritian Era, 1 September 7208 to 31 December 7208 then 1 January 1700 (History of the calendar in Russia and the USSR). — Joe Kress (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of "Solar Calendar" definition between linked pages

I don't usually get into the talk on Wiki so apologies if I'm breaking any protocol, but I was reading this page and within the 'Context of the Reform' section is the following line "...but was not used directly since ancient calendars were not solar although the Egyptian calendar and Iranian calendar did come very close with unadjusted years of 365 days."

The statement opens by claiming that the ancient calendars were not solar and then goes to include the Egyptian and Iranian in that mix of ancient calendars. However, when you click on the Egpytian calendar link, the opening line reads "The ancient Egyptian calendar was a solar calendar with a 365-day year.". So either the Egyptian calendar page should likely open with something about it being a "near solar" calendar, or the Julian Calendar page is incorrect in its assertion.

I figure someone smarter than me can figure it out, but it seems it should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinludlow (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that "not solar" is a misstatement, and that the Egyptian and Iranian calendars were, rather, solar but imprecise, as of course the Julian calendar was also, to a lesser degree! groupuscule (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

Please change every occurrence of "BC" to "BCE" and every occurrence of "AD" to "CE" because BC and AD have fallen out of favor, are not politically correct, and not acceptable usage any longer. The vast majority of the world's population is non-christian so the accepted designators are now "of the Common Era" (CE) and "Before the Common Era" (BCE). Bob.A51 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Bob.A51 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:ERA. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian calendar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720232543/http://bugle.imcce.fr/en/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php to http://bugle.imcce.fr/en/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.+Nat.+18.57&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Motivation:

In the article it say "Macrobius describes a further refinement whereby, in one 8-year period within a 24-year cycle, there were only three intercalary years, each of 377 days (thus 11 intercalary years out of 24). This refinement averages the length of the year to 365.25 days over 24 years."

The math is wrong 24 years 355 days each plus 11 leap months 22 days each = (355*24)+(22*11) = 8,762 days/24 years = 365.083333... please explain or correct.189.207.88.36 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Month Names

Quote "Much more lasting than the ephemeral month names of the post-Augustan Roman emperors were the Old High German names introduced by Charlemagne. According to his biographer, Charlemagne renamed all of the months agriculturally into German."

There is a problem with this assertion since Bede mentions that April is called Eostremonath by the "old" Anglo-Saxons and goes on to talk about how in his current times Pasca is now called Easter.

Since Charlemagne was born in 742 and Bede died in 735 it is obvious that at least some of these month names pre-dated Charlemagne's naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGHarris (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That certainly seems like a good challenge. All (!) you have to do now is find a reliable source to cite so that you can correct it properly. Welcome to Wikipedia! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes and References

I have separated the citations of sources ("References") from the footnotes which are not sources ("Notes") so that readers can recognise when a footnote provides further information instead of just a source, as otherwise they might overlook further information which they may want to read. Richard75 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

This page on the Julian Calendar is totally negating the Augustus Caesar Calendar enacted on January 1st 8BC.

What Julius Caesar put into action on January 1st 46BC was not proposed it was permanent at that time.

One grand Luna cycle: i.e. 38-years later Augustus Caesar changed six of the twelve months to the calendar year we have today.

Read Kieth Gordon Irwin's work: i.e. THE 365 DAYS (1963) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:BFC0:61:DDDE:2C0C:4C95:1E9E (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That is Sacrobosco's theory on month lengths (which see) proposed in 1252 AD that has been totally refuted. Augustus Caesar did not change any month lengths, although he did correct the leap year error. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Shall we use the modern notations CE and BCE?

I noticed that the article uses the dionysian notation BC and AD. I would prefer it if we were to use the academicly accepted BCE and CE notations. Does anyone agree? -- user:Kuririn45 08:36, 6 August 2018‎

Yes but it has no hope of gaining consensus. But if you like banging your head off a brick wall, the procedure is documented at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose changing the style because I consider it futile to try to cleanse English of words, phrases, and grammar that were created back when attitudes were different. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The policy that JMF links above says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content.". As a traditionalist, reading a traditional article, I see no reasons for the change. Dbfirs 13:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nor do I see any reason to change the era style. BC and AD are also academically accepted. AstroLynx (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2018

175.157.52.209 (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

45.112.177.101 (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done; no request. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

Change "calender" to "calendar" 3 times in the following paragraph:

The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem of Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church uses Julian calender, while the rest of Armenian Church uses Gregorian calender. Both celebrates the Nativity as part of the Feast of Theophany according to respective calender. Ptgrua (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 23:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

14 days (minorish edit)

At the end of the lead section, the article states "the Julian calendar is 13 days behind the Gregorian date, and after the year 2100 will be one day more". To me, it feels like it should be "after the year 2100 the date will be 14 days behind". This is because the wording is confusing and not exactly clear. DNVIC (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I though about this too, but did not think it a necessary edit. I will therefore leave this to my betters to decide whether this is a good idea. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO, it should not be there in the first place. The lead is for information that summarises the essential points of the body and this is not one. It also offends against wp:CRYSTAL (who knows what will happen when [if!] the year 2100 comes round) so I shall now solve the problem by deleting it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you think this is WP:CRYSTAL, but I think we may safely assume time will run its course. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Time will certainly run its course but we have no idea who (if anyone) will be around to observe it: the phrase just strikes me as make-weight trivia. Perhaps rather more to the point, since the purpose of the lead is to summarise the most important points of the body, it is not easy to see how this qualifies. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Struck my reply because Debresser had already come to the same conclusion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hipparchus discovered homosexuality?

Hovering over "Hipparchus" in the first section produces a pop-up preview with the following:

"Hipparchus of Nicaea was a Greek astronomer, geographer, and mathematician. He is considered the founder of trigonometry but is most famous for his incidental discovery of homosexuality."

Somebody with edit rights may want to change that :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.143.105.202 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. The vandalism at Hipparchus has been reverted but the cached preview lingers on. It will self-correct in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Make 'Julian date' a disambiguation?

At present, Julian date redirects to Julian day. In the light of the 'corrections' made to this article in the last few days, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Julian day#Make 'Julian date' a disambiguation? to suggest an alternative. Please respond there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Re Tesco

Hello, I am trying to add details from this RS to the page. My first contribution was to add a link to said RS which was reverted by @Jc3s5h: telling me that Giving a date as a year and then the number of the day within the year is not the Julian calendar. Now that is strange as it was referred to by both Tesco and The Independent and "the Jullian calendar" but I am grateful for you making clear what your complaint with the edit is. I changed the wording of my statement to clarify precisely how the Tesco system worked. Further, they asked me to read the article before editing it which seems like a bit of a leap to declare that you disagree with me, therefore, I haven't read the article. As I actually hadn't (and still haven't) spent the three-quarters of an hour required to read the full article[1] I will let it slide.

The new wording was then reverted by @Aaltotoukka: who said that [The] article cited is referring to Julian day number (in the sense of ordinal date), not the Julian calendar which is what my revision had attempted to clarify by stating the day of the year according to the Julian calendar. Additionally, their assertions that a writer in a high-quality broadsheet seems confused seems a little brave. As I understand it Wikipedia is about wp:Verifiability, not truth.

I was then given an edit war warning by Jc3s5h which is doubly strange given that my edit was to change the wording was what I thought they had asked for.

Despite all this, I am willing to accept that my terminology was inaccurate and if you would like to change any or all of the phrasing be my guest as you clearly know more about this than I do. However that an RS mentioned that Tesco uses the Julian calendar is worth a mention even in the sense that the broadsheet is wrong. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG which states, among other things, "scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."

WP:SCIDEF states " News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process."

You think the article is too long to bother now; if every instance of a reputable newspaper getting confused about calendars were added, no one at all would be willing to read it due to the extreme length. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. Please, could you find a "better" academic source reporting that Tesco did not, in fact, use the Julian calendar? I am also interested to hear that there are inacurate newspaper articles dedicated to the usage of the Julian calendar on any kind of regular basis. Could you point me to some more? El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. @Jc3s5h: I was indeed aware that Sock Puppetry was a thing but I am curious about why you wish to notify me about it. Am I engaged in similar editing patterns to another user? El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S. Just wondering but why is SCIDEF relevant. Is this an article about physics because it concerns time? Also willing to quibble over whether it is academic but I can see the reasoning. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This reply was composed before the P.S. and P.P.S. were written.

Specific instances of calendar terminology by newspapers or commercial firms is unworthy of mention in academic sources (and also Wikipedia) so no such report will exist regarding Tesco. Also, the story makes at least two errors, confusing the Julian calendar with the Julian day number and confusing an Ordinal date. It will be hard to find a reliable source that discusses both problems, but I found a source that discusses one of them.

Duncan Steel in the book Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar, published by the respected academic publisher Wiley in 2000 states on page 154

In principle the J.D./M.J.D. system is foolproof, but in the same way that Universal Time and Greenwich Mean Time have obtained multiple meanings due to laxity in usage, so have the phrases Julian date and Julian day number. Some people have taken to numbering the days within a year, starting from 1, as being Julian day numbers. This is doubly wrong because the correct system is cardinal, telling the number of days since the beginning of the count, and there are many other better terms which could be used (for example, civil day number).

Jc3s5h (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Finally after all the sock puppet notices and the edit war warnings, someone has explained to me what their actual position on this is. Congratulations. How about the following wording: "For some of its best before dates, Tesco uses the year followed by the Julian day of the year. While this was called 'the Julain calendar' by many, the year followed by the Julian day of the year is actually a misimplimentation of a Julian day number.

El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Tesco is unworthy of mention in this article, or any calendar-related article. If you add it I will seek administrator intervention on the basis of edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression that significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject made something worthy of mention. Am I wrong? Additionally, I feel that your suggestions that I am edit warring (and that I should consult the rules on sock puppetry) over the top when I have sought to understand and accommodate other editors opinions throughout my interaction with this article. El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The phrase you quoted, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", is not mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. Without knowing where the quote comes from it cannot be evaluated. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:GNG I know it isn't perfectly applicable but it's my rule of thumb concerning what definitely should be in an article (if something is entitled to an article of its own being placed in relevant article is almost certainly reasonable). El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:GNG explains how to decide whether Wikipedia should have an article about a particular topic. Since there is significant coverage of the Julian calendar in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, Wikipedia should have an article about it. WP:GNG is not about what should, or should not, be in the article. WP:VNOTSUFF explains although the absence of reliable sources is a good reason to remove a claim from an article, the mere existence of a reliable source for a claim is not sufficient to include the claim in an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:VNOTSUFF seems a little vague but does have some See also links which look like they might help. Give me a moment to go through them. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: I can see the logic behind VNOTSUFF - a sentence in a book should not guarantee inclusion. However, it seems bizarre that enough coverage to give it its own article is not enough to merit inclusion in one where it is highly relevant and so I am left wondering what would be enough coverage to merit inclusion here. I tried to examine other parts of the paragraph detailing usage and what sources were. However this did not prove useful as the source it uses is Dutchman News, a self-described "WordPress.com weblog" with just under 300 email followers.

Aditionally, none of the pages pointed to by VNOTSTUFF seem to be of any use. WP:INDISCRIMINATE covers 4 specific areas, WP:DON'T PRESERVE points people towards the guidance of WP:DUE which in turn struggles to be applicable outside of minority views. I get that it is not, in fact, an implementation of the Jullian calendar but is the world actually teaming with articles in newspapers (accurate or otherwise) about how major supermarket chains use the Jullian calendar? I've yet to see an example of another case. El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d like to point out, regarding notability and the reliability of newspaper sources, that the article in question was not a piece of detailed journalism, but little more than quoting the relevant Twitter posts and adding some explanation of “Julian date” that itself might easily have come from Wikipedia. It’s also this that made me think there was some confusion on the part of the writer, as they didn’t seem to have understood the difference between the Julian calendar and the ordinal date (referred to sometimes as the Julian day). In fact, I don’t think Tesco itself mentioned the Julian calendar at all, but the Julian date; the report in the Independent has introduced this, wrongly. If Tesco is noteworthy in this context, it belongs to [Ordinal date], not here. aaltotoukka (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Will consider adding to Ordinal Date. I'm going to desist with Julian Calendar. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Another relevant policy is WP:TRIVIA and if ever there needed to be an example of it, this is it: a throwaway remark by a journalist on a tabloid that is no longer printed, about an ephemeral tweet, about how a random supermarket based in a mid-sized European country dates its lettuces! If you are desperate to record it somewhere, try the Tesco article: now that you are better informed on the terminology, it will be better than it might otherwise have been. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am now slightly curious about what you consider to be the reliable sources of news in the UK (according to WP:RS/P they are The Guadian, The Independent, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph). The independent was, and I thought still is, regarded as broadsheet style paper. It is, regrettably, no longer printed. I am also slightly concerned that the global opinion of Britain has shrunk to an irrelevant footnote. Also, Tesco isn't any supermarket chain, it's the largest in the UK (as well as Ireland, Hungary and Thailand). I'll take a look at trivia though. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking out trivia first, it's left me with a question. Slightly curious but why did you link me to a page which says that it deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. when the question isn't where it appears. Thanks in advance. Still kind of want to know what sources I should be using for UK news if a broadsheet style newspaper doesn't count. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

First some mild disambiguation. I was referring to a 'broadsheet' style newspaper which is often used to describe reliable newspapers for historical reasons. Very few UK newspapers are still printed in broadsheet (the remaining ones being The Daily Telegraph (which has an older readership) and The Financial Times (which is a specialist newspaper)). The Guardian and The Times are both former broadsheets which have converted to tabloid (technically the times is a compact but the point still holds) so that they can be easily carried - they have reasured readers that this has no effect on editorial quality.[2][3] (can't find one for the times, sorry)

Ok, so having gone and read up on The Independent, it is still regularly called a 'broadsheet'[4][5] and its readers intellectual[6][7] but has attracted criticism for clickbaity headline and journalism by tweet[8] (neither of which I was referencing - I was citing body text which read Tesco has prompted confusion after a product was labelled with an expiry date according to the rarely-used Julian calendar) perhaps it's time for a new RS/N. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Context is everything. In this context (about the Julian Calendar), the item you cite is trivia. In an article about the Independent, for example, it might not – but 'Journalist (sub-editor?) makes schoolboy error, no British injured' – would certainly be open to challenge. In the article about Tesco, unless it is a formal announcement by Tesco, the same concerns would apply. (For the record, I wasn't challenging the Indo as a wp:RS, nor WP:verifiability not truth, but rather that the 'story' came about as a comedy of errors. It certainly doesn't deserve a home here and it is highly arguable whether it belongs anywhere. Journalists make mistakes too shock horror; unlike Wikipedia they don't have the luxury of going over every line for years afterwards with a nit comb. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

leap year error vs. new years day

The section Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error gives the example 29 February 2000 (Gregorian) fell on 16 February 2000 (Julian)

However, if the year changes on 25 March, this woould be 16 February 1999 (Julian) vs. 29 February 2000 (Gregorian), right? Should this be added for clarification that years here are compared based on year change on 1. January? --Traut (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Year 2000 is several centuries after the numbered year was changed from 25 March Lady Day to 1 January New Year's Day so no confusion is possible. Scotland changed its numbered year on 1 January beginning in 1600. Most European countries changed their numbered year before they adopted the Gregorian calendar, see Julian calendar#New Year's Day. 1 January was already named "New Year's Day" by King Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Samuel Pepys during the 16th–17th centuries. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, the Julian calendar has been around for just a little longer than the English tax year has existed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not me who choose year 2000 for the example - it's not only the year change, which is centuries ago, but the whole julian calender. If you assume which date would be which julian day, you also should consider the according year change--Traut (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Julian calendar is still in use by all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, including the Russian, for calculating Pascha (Easter). Because all their countries have officially adopted the Gregorian calendar, the Church use is private. Thus they may still use the Byzantine calendar with its Anno Mundi era adopted by the Byzantine Empire in 988 and used by Russia until 1700. Its year began 1 September. So our Gregorian year 2000 was its Julian year 7508 from January thru August and 7509 from September to December (except for 13 days). So even stating a year change on 1 January is not enough to avoid ambiguity when other eras are used. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Today's (18/03/20) Date is Off...

The date in the table is wrong. It has "18 March 2020" as today's date using the Gregorian calendar, which should be changed to "20 March 2020." 65.25.171.205 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This updates automatically; you made need to refresh the page or purge your cache. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

False statement on difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars

Change "During the 20th and 21st centuries, a date according to the Julian calendar is 13 days earlier than its corresponding Gregorian date" to "During the 20th and 21st centuries, a date according to the Julian calendar is 13 days later than its corresponding Gregorian date" The reasons is that the current statement is obviously wrong. Since the Julian year is longer then the Gregorian year, a date according to the Julian calendar is 13 days later than its corresponding Gregorian date, e.g. 1 January 2020 in the Julian calendar falls on 14 January 2020 in the Gregorian calendar. This means that 1 January 2020 Julian is 13 days later than 1 January 2020 Gregorian. Till grallert (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that the first version of this statement was added 08:25, 20 September 2018 UTC by Arminden and edited several time since then to try to clarify it.

I believe the statement is fatally flawed; the whole idea of a date in one calendar being earlier than another is nonsense. One event can be earlier than another, but dates are names for particular rotations of the Earth. It's the particular rotations that are earlier or later; the names are not earlier or later.

Here is an example of how a reliable source, The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 describes the situation regarding the Gregorian and Julian calendars, on page B4:

All dates are given in terms of the Gregorian calendar in which 2017 January 14 corresponds to 2017 January 1 of the Julian calendar.

I believe the statement that is the subject of this thread should be deleted. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely, it is a basic logic error by people confused by the nearness of the numbers that express today's date in each calendar. If the same statement is expressed in terms of the Islamic calendar, it may become clearer: a person who said that "today is 579 years earlier in the Islamic Calendar than it is in the Gregorian Calendar" would be considered innumerate. Today is today, addressing it in years since the French Revolution or since the Khmer Rouge Year Zero or whatever you like doesn't change the fact that it is still today. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: "A date" is not "today". If January 1st, according to the Julian calendar, falls 13 days later than January 1st, according to the Gregorian calendar, then indeed the correct way to describe this is that the "date" (note carefully: "date", not "day"). falls later according to one of the calendars. QED. Maybe this can be rewritten as "there is a difference of x days between the Julian and Gregorian calendars"; but the direction of the difference is also useful, so I see no reason to change this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Folks, I wasn't aware of the storm in a teacup my edit has created. There is one raison d'être for Wikipedia and one only: to help the user with correct and useful information. The article was lacking the only truly useful information when it comes to a calendar: when is what. I'm constantly dealing with religious holidays calculated according to both calendars, I tried to figure out if the actual difference is constant, and Wiki had lots of blabla, but no answer; other websites did. So I introduced the info here: always 13 days difference for the time being, with the gap widening in the future. Now I know: first comes Catholic & Protestant, say, Pentecost (Whitsun), and after precisely 13 days it's the Russian Orthodox one. If I forget the number, I look it up here again. Practical. The rest is for our pleasure (well, not only ours, the editors', but mainly; being a little provocative). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: But that is a different question (and actually a lot better one). What you really wanted to say (I'm being cheeky here, sorry) is that [for example], Epiphany in Eastern Orthodoxy falls 13 days later than it does in Western Christendom. The verbal gymnastics comes when you want to find a way to express the fact that, in each case, it still falls on a date called "6 January" – because of the different calculation method in each calendar. (The Islamic calendar example might help again, because it has a different year-length too, but a much more substantial one). How to express that "is left as an exercise for the reader", I agree that it needs doing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: Whitsun or Pentecost is the seventh Sunday after Easter in Christianity. But describing how Easter is calculated involves much more than just a different calendar, see Computus. So that is not something that can be addressed in this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I notice that I bumped into a different crowd of editors than those I'm used to. So stick to RandomCanadian. Basically we're saying the same, the user will be grateful and will easily understand what's written, the rest is semantics or an exercise in hair-splitting, and I don't really care much for that, sorry. The wording needs to be clear to the non-specialist user and state that dates, such as Church festivals, observed in accordance with the Julian calendar, arrive currently 13 days after the equivalent dates in the Gregorian calendar. Don't overcomplicate it, just stress that J = G + 13 and people will thank you for a) informing them and b) being brief and to the point. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree we want to make the article, and especially the lead, understandable to as many readers as possible. Certainly, for the lead. "date" means whatever it already means in the minds of readers; not any qualified meaning we might create within the article.

So what does "date" mean. I turn to the Leixco UK-English definition. (https://www.lexico.com/about "[Lexico.com is a new collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press (OUP) to help users worldwide with everyday language challenges.]")

date¹

The day of the month or year as specified by a number.

'what's the date today?' (and other similar definitions).

date²

A social or romantic appointment or engagement.

'I've got a hot date' (and other similar definitions).

I don't think these are specific enough to expect that readers have a clear understanding of whether a date refers to the name of a day, or the day itself. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden:, Great Schisms have happened over less :-) It is actually quite complicated because there is no fixed reference. The words in your reply are far closer to what is wanted than the present During the 20th and 21st centuries, a date according to the Julian calendar is 13 days earlier than its corresponding Gregorian date, which is just wrong (and your first version didn't really improve it because you started on bad foundations).

How about Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christendom celebrate many of the same holy days but each does so according to its own calendar. Consequently, during the 20th and 21st centuries, the Orthodox churches celebrate festivals thirteeen days after their Western peers have already done so. For example, each celebrates Epiphany on 6 January according to its own calendar but 6 January Gregorian is 24 December Julian and 6 January Julian is 19 January Gregorian. [needs work, am I counting the intervening days, both days or just one? But I think it gives the Ordinary Joe the right clues. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: sorry, but that's wrong. Most Christians consider Easter to be the most important holy day. In 2020 those who use the traditional calculation from the 6th century observed it on 19 April (Julian) or 2 May (Gregorian). Those who accept the Gregorian calendar, including the Gregorian Easter calculation, celebrated it on 12 April (Gregorian) or 30 March (Julian). Jc3s5h (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h:, sorry, what is wrong? I carefully avoided Easter because computus is a nest of vipers! Or do you mean that even if Rome celebrates Easter on (say) 1 April Gregorian, it must not be assumed that Constantinople will celebrate it on 1 April Julian (or 14 Aril Gregorian)? Yes, I guess that is what you meant and I agree. and consequently all events that are contingent on the date of Easter will be anything but 13 days.

Drat. Any better ideas? Arminden has identified a real problem and we need to find a solution (and at the same time, delete the erroneous statement). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman and Jc3s5h: Friends, you are complicating things unnecessarily. There's nothing wrong with the sentence. The old calendar is less precise, fix dates move further and further away from the astronomically correct date, the newer calendar was adopted because it's more accurate, and the drift of the Julian date, or the number of days between equivalent days, is growing. BROADLY SPEAKING during C20+21 (that's what normal people care for) it's of 13 days, later (nobody cares when exactly, or they find it in 2 minutes with Google) it will grow to 14, 15, and so forth. Enough, I'm out, I never cared much for hair-splitting. Arminden (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not hair-splitting to want the information to be accurate and not misleading.

How about For any given event during the 20th and 21st centuries, its date according to the Julian calendar is 13 days behind its corresponding Gregorian date. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's better, but to be true it would have to be For any given event during from 1901 to and including 2099, its date according to the Julian calendar is 13 days behind its corresponding Gregorian date. Some people would include 1900 in the 20th century, and others would include 2100 in the 21st century. Both are leap years in the Julian calendar but not in the Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That is unambiguous and a definite improvement. Slight change: "during the years from 1900 to 2199 inclusive". I thought of writing 1/1/1900 to 31/12/2199 but that immediately invites the question "in which calendar?" Now that would really be real hair-splitting!

So proposed final text: For any given event during the years from 1901 to 2099 inclusive, its date according to the Julian calendar is 13 days behind its corresponding Gregorian date. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And to me. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Julian calendar (disambiguation) article?

What do fellow editors feel about me creating a disambiguation article Julian calendar (disambiguation)? Having such an article would allow the hatnote to be reduced to "for other uses, see Julian calendar (disambiguation)". At present, the hat note just as Julian Day and Ordinal date. It doesn't have Julian date, Julian day number, Julian Period, or Julian year. It might also include Ordinal date?

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hatnotes and disambiguation pages do not fulfil precisely the same function. I'd stay with the hatnote, since that is more appropriate for the articles you mentioned. They don't need disambiguation, since they are not identical, just related, which is hat hatnotes are for. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that it wasn't straight-forward, which is why I raised it here first. Is there another alternative to listing all those other articles in the hatnote? (Yes, I know three of them redirect to the same article but visitors don't). "Julian date" in particular has been a perennial source of confusion and even argument. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I have extended the {{about}} to add Julian date and Julian Period, in the light of this discussion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"گاه‌شماری ژولین" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect گاه‌شماری ژولین. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#گاه‌شماری ژولین until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Julian time" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Julian time. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Julian time until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"O. S." listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect O. S.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#O. S. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

First occurrence of "bissextile"

The term "bissextile" is used without explanation in the History section, in the first paragraph under "Adoption of the Julian calendar." A brief explanation would be helpful to non-specialists, even as simple as adding "February 29" if that would be appropriate.

Later in the article the term reappears in an August context. Billfalls (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

...or perhaps "see 'Intercalation' below." Billfalls (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

In the second para in the lede, pls change "the length of the average year" to "the average length of the year". Thx 220.235.85.154 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done — see Special:Diff/1027291559. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! 220.235.85.154 (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparent discrepancy in length of a year

Introductory section: "They follow a simple cycle of three normal years and one leap year, giving an average year that is 365.25 days long. That is more than the actual solar year value of 365.24219 days, which means the Julian calendar gains a day every 128 years."

#Year length; leap years: "The Julian year is, therefore, on average 365.25 days long. Consequently, the Julian year drifts over time with respect to the tropical year (365.24217 days). ...The Gregorian calendar diverges from astronomical observations by one day in 3,030 years."

A tropical and solar year are the same. The discrepancy is apparently due to the difference in how a day is measured, something called ephemeris time (which confuses me when I read about it but I think is just established clock time) and something called mean solar time. In terms of seasons and the shifting of the equinoxes, I would imagine the latter is what's actually important. Is this in fact the better value to use? Or am I completely mistaken and this discrepancy is expected because different ideas are being explained here?

Is the second calculation original research? If mean solar time changes based on the slowing rotation of the Earth, then can we really calculate the drift out that far? And assuming we can, then given the small differences in the values (footnote 42, Richards 2013), wouldn't cancellation error make the result much less precise? DAVilla (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Change the formatting of the page from unjustified to justified. Wikipoter (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Justification of pages is decided on a Wikipedia-wide basis, not article-by article. Bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Jc3s5h (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

but it is unlikely to be changed given the disproportionate cost to do so, especially given that we can't make any assumptions about the size of screen it will be read on. Meanwhile, you are entirely at liberty to download it to your favourite word processing software and justify as you wish, whether for single letter paper or multi-column broadsheet newspaper. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

To editors Wikipoter, Jc3s5h and John Maynard Friedman: actually, the text is justified in the commonly default manner known as "flush left"; iow it is "left-justified", also called "ragged right". To fully justify pages and make the margins the same flush on both the left and right sides of the text, one can either use a fully justified text editor or maybe look around for a script that fully justifies Wikipedia pages (I've never come across such a script, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't made one). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Out of alignment with what?

At the moment, the section "Transition history" ends with By 1582, it was ten days out of alignment from where it supposedly had been in 325, the year of the Council of Nicaea, but doesn't really say what "it" was. Would be reasonably accurate to change this to By 1582, 21 March was ten days out of alignment with the March equinox, the date where it supposedly had been in 325, the year of the Council of Nicaea? Or is there a better way to correct it?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"It" refers back to the previous paragraph, which mentions the astronomical seasons, and specifically "As a result, 21 March (which is the base date for the calculating the date of Easter) gradually moved out of alignment with the March equinox." I think your change would be good. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

New Year's Day

@Liggliluff: If you want to pursue it, references 2 and 2 at New Year's Day#New Year's Day in the older Julian calendar give the various dates at various times in various countries when New Year's Day was celebrated. But I think that you may be in danger of creating a wp:content fork and maybe it would be better just to point readers to the New Year's Day article as maybe it is excessively detailed for this one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Normal Humans Don't Use the Old Roman Calandar

I think the Ab urbe condita date should be moved to parenthesis and Gregorian dating moved to the main text. Encyclopaedias are supposed to be in the language of laymen. Laymen do not use nor understand Ab urbe condita, links to definition notwithstanding. Having to check links for every obscure term makes articles de facto unreadable. Obscure terms are just another form of unneeded jargon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more secific? in most cases where AUC is mentioned, the BC equivalent is also given. Bear in mind that that the Gregorian calendar arrived on the scene over 2000 years after the putative foundation of the city of Rome. Which specific section is irritating you? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Geocentric or ptolemaic theory line

user:AstroLynx Hi, you reverted my edit (13:31, 21 December 2021‎).

I can change 'It was based on geocentric theory.' to 'It was based on Ptolemaic theory.' if you rather? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyBennison (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The whole addition, no matter how expressed, strikes me as just too peripheral to the topic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, if we add this trivial fact here, we will have to do this for every calendar system used before circa 1600. It adds nothing to what anyone with some knowledge about ancient history already knows, AstroLynx (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The calendar is based upon the measurement of astronomical movements and relationships thereof, recorded and predicted a.k.a. geocentric or Ptolemaic theory. The theory helps to form the foundations upon which the calendar is based i.e. the calendar continues to be accurate (keep time) based upon it corresponding to the 'accurate' astronomical theory. How can that be anything other than directly relevant to an understanding of the calendar? Also, I do not think you can expect people to already have a detailed knowledge of Ancient history. RickyBennison (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You would need at the very least to provide a reliable source for your surmise, because it looks like OR/SYNTH. It is not at all obvious that determination of the length of a year required any theoretical foundation. It is well documented that they determined the solstice (and the Tropic of Cancer) by observing sunshine at the bottom of deep wells, so from that it is easy to derive that the average length of a year is 365.25 days. It doesn't need a grand theory of the music of the spheres, though it could be retrofitted into such a fantasy. It works equally with the heliocentric as with the geocentric model, and it doesn't need either. So the citation will have to show that the geocentric model was a critical element of the decision to change from the Roman to the Julian reckoning. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think it does. It just has to show that the calendar was based on geocentric/Ptolemaic theory. Which is what I said in the edit. I will also add a line which says it was a solar calendar and different from the preceding lunar calendar, and say how. Feel free to comment.RickyBennison (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ab urbe condita - BRD discussion

In an edit note, Iveagh Gardens wrote Page for ab urbe condita suggests the use of AUC became prominent in time of Claudius, so anachronistic to use it in reference to Julius Caesar; this article itself states "Only rarely did the Romans number the year from the founding of the city") and removed it to leave a BC date. Sauce for the goose time: the BC notation was totally unknown at the time of Julius so by the same logic we should remove the BC too. At least there is some possibility that Caesar's advisors knew about AUC reckoning (this may have been one of the rare times); there is absolutely zero possibility that they knew about BC. I also suggest that it is important to give the epoch of the Julian calendar with respect to the calendar that preceded it, not (only) one that followed it. So I'm not arguing that BC should be removed, only that AUC be retained.

Accordingly I am reverting that edit pending consensus here. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure the BC/AD dating system can reasonably be described as a goose to gander of the AUC system (I’m neutral on it versus BCE/CE, but that’s another matter). One system is used by historians nearly universally. By its very definition, no one ever could have been using the BC/BCE dates at the time, yet we use them generally on Wikipedia. The ab urbe condita suggests it wasn’t in general use all that much. It is only speculation to say that Caesar’s advisors knew of AUC; they probably had come across it, but they weren’t using it, nor was the Julian calendar replacing it. Using it to mark dates gives a misleading impression that years in Rome were publicly marked as such, for example at the start of the consular year. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

BC notation has the advantage that there is universal agreement, in modern times, of what it means. There is an uncertainty of a few days about what the date January 1, 1 BC in the Julian calendar (as actually observed in Rome) would be converted to in the proleptic Julian calendar, but that's only a slight uncertainty. There are different versions of AUC, so if we use it, we have to specify which one we mean.

As for the epoch of the Julian calendar stated in the calendar of the Roman Republic, it would be the day after the end of the year in which Julius Caesar was consul for the third time and M. Aemilius Lepidus was consul for the first time. See List of Roman consuls and Roman consul. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If different versions of AUC were used, it reinforces my view that we shouldn’t use it here. I don’t see that it adds useful information to the reader, and gives a very occasionally used system undue prominence. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] My "sauce for the gander" remark was in respect of the anachronism. But I am persuaded by Jc3s5h's argument so I will revert my reversion (and likewise at the Calendar Act article). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this, and always good to have a healthy discussion on these matters! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Rationale of my most recent change

I want the additional day to be added at the beginning of March every 100-but-not-400 years. The way the page was before, the day would be added at the beginning of January. Please check my edit because there is a good chance I messed something up. I💖平沢唯 (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I just realised that it still wrong, but much closer. The actual day skip is when the Julian calendar reaches 29 February every 100-but-not-400 years. I will try to fix it but I’m not very good at this I💖平沢唯 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

We recognise your good faith in trying to correct an error but you need to use this talk page to explain your analysis of the problem and then explain how your new code fixes it. Your 07:44 (UTC) message describes the error (it would be better if it said what causes the error) but you have yet to show how your alternative code fixes it. In all probability it is correct but [in my own (bitter) experience] being required to explain it does a great job of verifying it. A few worked examples would help. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As an example of proper calendar code development, Dershowitz and Reingold in the several editions of their Calendrical Calculations tested all their calendar algorithms for at least ± 10,000 years from the present. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Originally, the code for the Julian calendar was just the current date minus 13. I then changed it so that every 100-but-not-400 years, the number 13 would be increased by 1. For example, at the beginning of 2100 it would become 14, then in 2200 it would become 15, and so on. I then changed it again so that this extra day would be added at the beginning of every March on a century common year. But the extra day actually gets added about two weeks later, when the Julian calendar reaches 29 February, so I’m gonna change it again to reflect that. I don’t have prior experience with this so I’m definitely not doing this in the best possible way. If someone else wants to do it instead then please tell me I💖平沢唯 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok I'll explain what I tried to do. I coded it so that if the current year is not divisible by 100, or if it's divisible by 400, or if the Julian date is past February, the Julian date is just the same formula that was on this page before, which is this: [current date - 13 - ((current year-2000)/100 - (current year-2000)/400)]. If the current year is divisible by 100 but not 400, then it checks whether the [current date + 3 - (current year/100 - current year-/400)] is 1 March. If it is, then the Julian date is 29 February. If it's not then the formula is the same as usual except for 12 instead of 13, like this: [current date - 12 - ((current year-2000)/100 - (current year-2000)/400)]. I also moved all of this to Template:JULIANCALENDAR. I know I'm terrible at explaining it but please read over that and tell me if I did something wrong I💖平沢唯 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I invoke the No original research policy. I insist that any code that is more than a trivial calculation (such as subtracting 13) be taken from a source that satisfies the Identifying reliable sources guideline and a citation be provided to the original source. The citation could be placed either in this article or, if implemented as a template, in the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What if I change it to be based on this? I💖平沢唯 (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That would be a suitable reliable source; indeed, it's one I have saved on my computer. But I suggest searching the existing templates to see if there is one that is suitable. Also, modules can be written in Lua; maybe the Lua language already has support for Julian calendar dates. Experience dealing with people who come to calendar related articles such as Julian calendar and Julian day indicates that people try to implement an algorithm in the article and find that their version disagrees with the article version, so they "fix" it. It almost always turns out that they didn't understand some aspect of calendrical computing, such as floating point division vs. integer division, that Julian days start at noon, or the like. It takes a lot of work to convert a calendar algorithm from one computer language to another, and just as much work to document what you did so other editors will refrain from deleting it. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see one on the category ‘Date-computing templates based on current time’. I’m gonna try to make one based on the link I sent you (though if you want to do it instead then please do). Also, your last revert messed up the page, so please return this page to the template I made or to how it was originally until this is resolved I💖平沢唯 (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Done I💖平沢唯 (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is a new template needed?

Why is a new template ({{JULIANCALENDAR}}) needed? The following should work. {{extract}} uses Module:Age which uses Module:Date.

• {{extract|currentdate}} → 5 November 2024 (Today, Gregorian)
• {{extract|juliandate|julian|{{extract|currentdate|show=juliandate}}}} → 23 October 2024 (Today, Julian)

Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

and if we are going to have it (and I can just about see the point) then if anyone is to find it, it should replicate the naming convention and style of similar templates, like {{Today/AD/AH}}, {{Today/AD/SH/AH}}, {{Today/CE/AM}}. (See Hijri calendar, Solar Hijri calendar, Hebrew calendar for use in context.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears the extract template would do the job. I notice the only category this template is in is "Lua-based templates". That might explain why no one found it. I notice the source code for the Date template, which extract calls, has mention of Claus Tøndering's website. I consider the calendar portion of his website reliable for my own use, although I don't know if it would fulfill Wikipedia's guideline for self-published sources. I've seen his work cited on works that are clearly reliable, although I can't bring one to mind at the moment.

But whatever reliable sources may have been used in the Dates module, they are not mentioned in the documentation. Also, the documentation for extract does not mention what modules it calls, nor does it mention what reliable sources it is directly or indirectly based on. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that Module:Date relies on the formulas at tondering.dk. I tested various things including a Python date library and found that some formulas worked only for an entirely practical but very limited range of dates whereas those at tondering.dk worked for all dates with a four-digit year (−9999 to 9999). More important than the source that a particular implementation claims to use are the questions (1) is the implementation correct? and (2) has the implementation been thoroughly tested? I have tested the Module:Date procedures using scripts but as a matter of interest it is possible to spot check dates like this:

• {{extract|juliandate|{{extract|31 March 1700|show=juliandate}}}} → 31 March 1700
• {{extract|juliandate|julian|{{extract|31 March 1700|show=juliandate}}}} → 20 March 1700

The first example confirms that 31 March 1700 Gregorian can be converted to a Julian date and back again. The second example shows that the same day had an 11-day difference in the Julian calendar. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Describing the divergence from Gregorian

I think saying that the calendars get a day further apart "every 128 years" is confusing, and in fact without saying "on average" afterwards, pretty much incorrect. (For that matter, I may have missed something ... why 128 not 133?) Wouldn't it be simpler to say that it gets one more day out once each century except every fourth one, i.e. whenever the Gregorian calendar skips a leap year. Then the next sentence makes so much more sense (that the difference is 13 days from 1901 to 2099), and people can easily see that the difference will be 14 days in the 2100s, 15 in the 2200s, etc. which is pretty easy reckoning.123.243.8.208 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Anyone want to defend the status quo? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Doing a quick check on what the average is, I made this table.

Greg	Jul	A-B
Jan 1, 1600	Dec 22, 1599	10
Dec 31, 2799	Dec 12, 2799	19
diff		9
1200/9 =	133.3333333

Notice the time span is 1200 years, an integer multiple of the period of the Gregorian civil calendar, 400 years. So why wouldn't the divergence, on average, be 1 year every 133? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer to describe the rate of divergence in a way that relates to its cause. Thus say "three days every 400 years". John Sauter (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I will take that as consensus for the suggested change and will use JS's proposed text. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

and then when I went to do it, I thought, hang about, "gains three days" versus what? The preceding sentence is talking about the average tropical year not the Gregorian year, so what we really want to say is by how much it drifts wrt sidereal time – by how much is its 21 March adrift of the March equinox? Right now, the most common date for the equinox is 20 March Gregorian => 9 March Julian.

Is this calculation correct?

• 365*3+366 = 1,461 (= four years); 1,461*100 = 146,100 (400 years)
• 365.24219*400 = 146,096.876 (400 years)
• Difference 96.876 = 3 days 21 hours => best part of four days.

What have I missed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

When I multiply 365.2419 by 400 I get 146,096.76. 400 Julian years is 146,100 days, and 146,100 - 146,096.76 = 3.24, so the Julian year gains 3.24 days on the tropical year every 400 years. 400 Gregorian years, being 3 days shorter, gains 0.24 days. John Sauter (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

See our Tropical year article for values for the tropical year; I have reverified the values taken from Richards (p. 587) cited in that article. Looking at the table in Richards, if I wanted to state a value for the length of the tropical year representative of the period 500 to 2000 (astronomical year numbering) I would write 365.2422 ephemeris days (each day comprising 86,400 SI seconds). I would not write more than 4 digits after the decimal point, nor would I apply it before the year 500.

Sidereal time has nothing to do with it. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, taking 365.2422 for the number of days in the tropical year, 365.2422 × 400 = 146,096.88 days in 400 tropical years. The number of days in 400 Julian years is ((365 × 3) + 366) × 100 = 146,100, so the Julian calendar gains 146,100 - 146,096.88 = 3.12 days on the tropical year. In the Gregorian calendar, 400 years is 3 days shorter, so gains only 0.12 days on the tropical year. John Sauter (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The crudest way to analyze error propagation is to keep track of the number of significant figures. Since 365.2422 has seven significant figures, the number of days in 400 tropical year should be stated as 146,096.9. The gain of the Julian calendar would then be stated as 3.1 days and the gain of the Gregorian calendar is 0.1 days. Given the fuzziness of what period we're interested in, a more sophisticated analysis is not warranted. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will try again with that. (Excuse my lazy use of sidereal time, I was focused on the March equinox as a reference point.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, few will take the time to read it all through, here or in the article (I won't). The current 13 days difference between Julian and Gregorian is essential and must be much better highlighted (it gets lost in the looong paragraph), and the (approximate) number of years it takes for it to grow by yet another day (on average, I guess). Once we indicate these 2 figures, every user will understand the fact that it grows constantly and by what rate, more or less. Anything more than that is fodder for math buffs who want to redo the calculation by themselves, in other words: too much for Wiki, IMHO. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: please check if the quasi-algorithm I've added at the end is accurate. I think it is, and it offers a concise and useful conclusion. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)