Talk:Dual dating

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good, that works. A google search will find easily enough. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Hordaland (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence, 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: ... 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)
thread_title:  RFC on a proposed major change ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Focus? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On what date was each year advanced? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Use of dates from historical documents in contemporary documents