Talk:Common year starting on Monday

message: ; originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color of Sunday dates 

message: ; originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest that we answer this question under the similar heading Beginning on a Monday above?  My response is already there.  Certes (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weeks starting on Monday? 

message: ; originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The other 13 pages with the common/leap years don’t have this issue, apparently.---Schweiwikist (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other 13 pages have issues which are so similar that it makes sense to discuss them all in one place.  We picked this talk page because it already contained previous discussions about other matters relating to all 14 pages.  Some of the other talk pages have links to here and could possibly be replaced by redirects to here. Certes (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No progress 

message: ; originally from Talk:Common year starting on Sunday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The International conventions on the subject state that weeks begin on Monday. Do you have any reference for that claim about Sunday being the first day of the week "for two thousand years and more"? Loqu (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday at the End? 

message: ; originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful. But it's sort of like a phonebook too. I'm inclined to keep it as is though. --HappyCamper 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The purpose of all these pages is to provide a calendar for a particular type of year. See pages that link to these. Karl 10:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur, these are very useful articles. I'd also suggest supplementing them with common holidays highlighted. Flibirigit 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually just found this incredibly helpful in a conversation about years and how they are laid out according to calender format.  I am all for keeping this. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on these pages 

message: ; Originally from Talk:Leap year starting on Saturday — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness 

message: ==Here is someones anonymous contribution==
…that apart from further explanation makes no sense at all (as to why it is here, or if it should remain):
"With week numbers, produced by :
===2006===
January 2006	January 2006	January 2006	January 2006	January 2006	January 2006	January 2006	January 2006
       	Mo          	Tu          	We          	Th          	Fr          	Sa          	Su</font>
(0)         	26          	27          	28          	29          	30          	31          	1
(1)         	2           	3           	4           	5           	6           	7           	8
(2)         	9           	10          	11          	12          	13          	14          	15
(3)         	16          	17          	18          	19          	20          	21          	22
(4)         	23          	24          	25          	26          	27          	28          	29
(5)         	30          	31          	1           	2           	3           	4           	5
February 2006	February 2006	February 2006	February 2006	February 2006	February 2006	February 2006	February 2006
        	Mo           	Tu           	We           	Th           	Fr           	Sa           	Su</font>
(5)          	30           	31           	1            	2            	3            	4            	5
(6)          	6            	7            	8            	9            	10           	11           	12
(7)          	13           	14           	15           	16           	17           	18           	19
(8)          	20           	21           	22           	23           	24           	25           	26
(9)          	27           	28           	1            	2            	3            	4            	5
March 2006	March 2006	March 2006	March 2006	March 2006	March 2006	March 2006	March 2006
     	Mo        	Tu        	We        	Th        	Fr        	Sa        	Su</font>
(9)       	27        	28        	1         	2         	3         	4         	5
(10)      	6         	7         	8         	9         	10        	11        	12
(11)      	13        	14        	15        	16        	17        	18        	19
(12)      	20        	21        	22        	23        	24        	25        	26
(13)      	27        	28        	29        	30        	31        	1         	2
April 2006	April 2006	April 2006	April 2006	April 2006	April 2006	April 2006	April 2006
     	Mo        	Tu        	We        	Th        	Fr        	Sa        	Su</font>
(13)      	27        	28        	29        	30        	31        	1         	2
(14)      	3         	4         	5         	6         	7         	8         	9
(15)      	10        	11        	12        	13        	14        	15        	16
(16)      	17        	18        	19        	20        	21        	22        	23
(17)      	24        	25        	26        	27        	28        	29        	30
May 2006	May 2006	May 2006	May 2006	May 2006	May 2006	May 2006	May 2006
   	Mo      	Tu      	We      	Th      	Fr      	Sa      	Su</font>
(18)    	1       	2       	3       	4       	5       	6       	7
(19)    	8       	9       	10      	11      	12      	13      	14
(20)    	15      	16      	17      	18      	19      	20      	21
(21)    	22      	23      	24      	25      	26      	27      	28
(22)    	29      	30      	31      	1       	2       	3       	4
June 2006	June 2006	June 2006	June 2006	June 2006	June 2006	June 2006	June 2006
    	Mo       	Tu       	We       	Th       	Fr       	Sa       	Su</font>
(22)     	29       	30       	31       	1        	2        	3        	4
(23)     	5        	6        	7        	8        	9        	10       	11
(24)     	12       	13       	14       	15       	16       	17       	18
(25)     	19       	20       	21       	22       	23       	24       	25
(26)     	26       	27       	28       	29       	30       	1        	2
July 2006	July 2006	July 2006	July 2006	July 2006	July 2006	July 2006	July 2006
    	Mo       	Tu       	We       	Th       	Fr       	Sa       	Su</font>
(26)     	26       	27       	28       	29       	30       	1        	2
(27)     	3        	4        	5        	6        	7        	8        	9
(28)     	10       	11       	12       	13       	14       	15       	16
(29)     	17       	18       	19       	20       	21       	22       	23
(30)     	24       	25       	26       	27       	28       	29       	30
(31)     	31       	1        	2        	3        	4        	5        	6
August 2006	August 2006	August 2006	August 2006	August 2006	August 2006	August 2006	August 2006
      	Mo         	Tu         	We         	Th         	Fr         	Sa         	Su</font>
(31)       	31         	1          	2          	3          	4          	5          	6
(32)       	7          	8          	9          	10         	11         	12         	13
(33)       	14         	15         	16         	17         	18         	19         	20
(34)       	21         	22         	23         	24         	25         	26         	27
(35)       	28         	29         	30         	31         	1          	2          	3
September 2006	September 2006	September 2006	September 2006	September 2006	September 2006	September 2006	September 2006
         	Mo            	Tu            	We            	Th            	Fr            	Sa            	Su</font>
(35)          	28            	29            	30            	31            	1             	2             	3
(36)          	4             	5             	6             	7             	8             	9             	10
(37)          	11            	12            	13            	14            	15            	16            	17
(38)          	18            	19            	20            	21            	22            	23            	24
(39)          	25            	26            	27            	28            	29            	30            	1
October 2006	October 2006	October 2006	October 2006	October 2006	October 2006	October 2006	October 2006
       	Mo          	Tu          	We          	Th          	Fr          	Sa          	Su</font>
(39)        	25          	26          	27          	28          	29          	30          	1
(40)        	2           	3           	4           	5           	6           	7           	8
(41)        	9           	10          	11          	12          	13          	14          	15
(42)        	16          	17          	18          	19          	20          	21          	22
(43)        	23          	24          	25          	26          	27          	28          	29
(44)        	30          	31          	1           	2           	3           	4           	5
November 2006	November 2006	November 2006	November 2006	November 2006	November 2006	November 2006	November 2006
        	Mo           	Tu           	We           	Th           	Fr           	Sa           	Su</font>
(39)         	25           	26           	27           	28           	29           	30           	1
(40)         	2            	3            	4            	5            	6            	7            	8
(41)         	9            	10           	11           	12           	13           	14           	15
(42)         	16           	17           	18           	19           	20           	21           	22
(43)         	23           	24           	25           	26           	27           	28           	29
(44)         	30           	31           	1            	2            	3            	4            	5
December 2006	December 2006	December 2006	December 2006	December 2006	December 2006	December 2006	December 2006
        	Mo           	Tu           	We           	Th           	Fr           	Sa           	Su</font>
(48)         	27           	28           	29           	30           	1            	2            	3
(49)         	4            	5            	6            	7            	8            	9            	10
(50)         	11           	12           	13           	14           	15           	16           	17
(51)         	18           	19           	20           	21           	22           	23           	24
(52)         	25           	26           	27           	28           	29           	30           	31
== This table of wikilinks moved to Talk ==
…until its location within the article can be considered, and until it can be accompanied by brief, sufficient text to explain its meaning/intent: 
I am a learned individual, and a longtime editor, and prima facie, this means nothing to a lay reader, and so requires explanation. Where do these links purport to take the reader?  71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put the template back to where it was under the References section. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A: [[Common year starting on Sunday]] 

message: …until its location within the article can be considered, and until it can be accompanied by brief, sufficient text to explain its meaning/intent: 
I am a learned individual, and a longtime editor, and prima facie, this means nothing to a lay reader, and so requires explanation. Where do these links purport to take the reader?  71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put the template back to where it was under the References section. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This table of wikilinks moved to Talk 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common year starting on Sunday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402145837/http://jonstlouis.htmlplanet.com/1_cal/perpet/m01.htm to http://jonstlouis.htmlplanet.com/1_cal/perpet/m01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Concerning the table of example years.
I consider it too big for the information it contains, not worth the scrolling and waiting.
I prefer the previous century per row table.
I see no need for links to millennia in the table and I do not think links to decades are important enough here to justify making the table 10 times longer.
Or why not just list the example years (e.g.)
 1803 1814 1825 1831 1842 
 1853 1859 etc.
Also not being in a HTML tabler form backs it easier for users to correct or extend (e.g. to full 400 years).
User:Karl Palmen - 23 March 2004
I am on a Mac and the numbers don't properly align.
The format that I talked about above, 
has been replaced by an alternative different from the one
I suggested. I am happy with it.
User:Karl Palmen - 19 September 2005
== New unusual format overruns small screens ==
07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years.  Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar.  Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year.  The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays.  I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B: [[Common year starting on Saturday]] 

message: 07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years.  Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar.  Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year.  The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays.  I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New unusual format overruns small screens 

message: Someone or some people from various IP addresses beginning with 39.50 has been repeated adding leap years to a list of example years early in the article. Karl (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated addition of Leap Years 

message: nth decade of mth century starts with ***0 and ends with ***9. So, 2010 is part of 2nd decade, not 1st, 2190 is part of 10th decade, not 9th. --40bus (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decade 

message: == New unusual format overruns small screens ==
07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years.  Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar.  Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year.  The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays.  I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  G: [[Common year starting on Monday]] 

message: 07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years.  Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar.  Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year.  The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays.  I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New unusual format overruns small screens 

message: We're discussing the accessibility of calendar pages. Please join us! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility 

message: == The clearly confirmable actual fact of the exact identitiy of the periods within any period of four centuries in the Gregorian calendar ==
Can I together of course with others do otherwise than clearly admire the works of those who have taken such trouble on this matter? 
Ladies and gentlemen, unfotunately it seems you do not take into account the fact that as I have stated at the headline of this my own contribution on this Talk Page all four hundred years are exactly identical in this form of what is now to some extent international calendars.
What is possibly related is the fact that unfortunately I have not seen this clearly confirmable fact made identified on Wikipedia or indeed perhaps anywhere else but personally I think it must have been clear at the time that this form of calendars was first created in Europe in the 16th century.  
The immediate issue is the period of six days in addition of weeks in the century in the last year of 99 before the century in the years divisible by four hundred and of five days in the same issue in the following three centuries this being of course a total of twenty-one days that which is divisible by seven (or weeks) and with the final century in the four hundred year section carried one day ahead from the centuries divisible by four hundred (such as 17th or the present 21st centuries) this being with any similar form at the commencement of what is any such four centuries.  
This is I suggest (even if not perhaps particularly well explained by myself here and not directly explained so far as I am aware anywhere else) a fact which cannot I believe be denied and I very much hope that eventually it is something that will become better known generally.   
Peter Judge  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.31 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BA: [[Leap year starting on Saturday]] 

message: Can I together of course with others do otherwise than clearly admire the works of those who have taken such trouble on this matter? 
Ladies and gentlemen, unfotunately it seems you do not take into account the fact that as I have stated at the headline of this my own contribution on this Talk Page all four hundred years are exactly identical in this form of what is now to some extent international calendars.
What is possibly related is the fact that unfortunately I have not seen this clearly confirmable fact made identified on Wikipedia or indeed perhaps anywhere else but personally I think it must have been clear at the time that this form of calendars was first created in Europe in the 16th century.  
The immediate issue is the period of six days in addition of weeks in the century in the last year of 99 before the century in the years divisible by four hundred and of five days in the same issue in the following three centuries this being of course a total of twenty-one days that which is divisible by seven (or weeks) and with the final century in the four hundred year section carried one day ahead from the centuries divisible by four hundred (such as 17th or the present 21st centuries) this being with any similar form at the commencement of what is any such four centuries.  
This is I suggest (even if not perhaps particularly well explained by myself here and not directly explained so far as I am aware anywhere else) a fact which cannot I believe be denied and I very much hope that eventually it is something that will become better known generally.   
Peter Judge  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.31 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The clearly confirmable actual fact of the exact identitiy of the periods within any period of four centuries in the Gregorian calendar 

message: 2000 is part of 21st century. --40bus (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of 21st century 

message: I like how this leap year calendar is supposed to start on a friday, but lists january 1 as thursday... what gives? 218.215.5.61 (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CB: [[Leap year starting on Friday]] 

message: move to Leap years starting on friday?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingidiot (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural 

message: == Week 53 ==
There is an inconsistency in the week numbering. The last week of this year (Dec 28-31) should be week 53. It is correct on the year that follows this one (Common year starting on Friday). The fix will need to be done on Template:Year3. NoSeptember 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ED: [[Leap year starting on Wednesday]] 

message: There is an inconsistency in the week numbering. The last week of this year (Dec 28-31) should be week 53. It is correct on the year that follows this one (Common year starting on Friday). The fix will need to be done on Template:Year3. NoSeptember 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 53 

message: == Leap year starting on Monday - Request for interwikilink on german village pump/ref desk and answers ==
Whats a Leap_year_starting_on_Monday in german? Please interwiki it. thnx. :-)  (nicht signierter Beitrag von 46.115.39.198 (Diskussion) 20:52, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)) 
: Ich bin baff. Den Quatsch gibt's in 18 Sprachen, darunter sogar auf friesisch. Wer braucht so was? -- TZorn 21:54, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
::(BK) Ich würde mal sagen haben wir nicht. Wir haben Schaltjahr und Kalender und trauen unseren Usern zu selbst ein bisschen zu rechnen oder zu Googeln. --Mauerquadrant (Diskussion) 21:57, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
:In der deutschen Wikipedia entspricht dieser Artikel Wikipedia:Was Wikipedia nicht ist Punkt 7. --Rôtkæppchen68 22:17, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
::War da mal Artikelanzahlwettbewerb? Jedenfalls kann man was draus machen: Schaltjahre sind schon mal sieben Artikel, weil es ja Schaltjahre mit jedem Anfangswochentag gibt. Noch mal sieben für die Nichtschaltjahre.
::Dann nochmal Artikel für einzelne Tage, zusammen 7 multipliziert 366, von "Sonntage am 1. Januar" bis "Samstage am 31. Dezember". Dann stellen wir uns ein paar Jahrzehnte an größere Kreuzungen und schreiben "Montage, an denen um 0.01 Uhr die Ampel der Schillerstraße rot war" bis "Sonntage, an denen um 23.59 Uhr der Querverkehr grün hatte". Spezifisch für Deutschland: "Bundestagssitzungen, die nicht 3 Stunden 48 Minuten dauerten" (sondern mehr oder weniger). Sind wieder ein paar Tausend. Kirschschorle (Diskussion) 23:10, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
:::Das ist doch unnötig polemisch und unfair. In en sind das gerade mal 14 Artikel, die einen bestimmten Zweck erfüllen: jedem ohne Rechnerei ermöglichen, beliebige Wochentage in allen Jahren herauszufinden. Natürlich könnte man das alles auch in einen einzigen Artikel packen. Aber mit der Ampel in der Schillerstraße hat das wirklich nichts zu tun. --AndreasPraefcke (Diskussion) 08:27, 14. Mai 2012 (CEST)
:::: Naja, aber wenn ich einen Kalender für das Jahr 2024 haben will, schaue ich dann einfach auf einen Kalender (beliebiger Art) für das Jahr 2024, oder überlege ich mir, dass 2024 ein Schaltjahr beginnend mit einem Montag sein muss und schaue dann nach einem Kalender für Schaltjahre beginnend mit einem Montag in der Online-Enzyklopädie meines Vertrauens? --YMS (Diskussion) 09:08, 14. Mai 2012 (CEST)
--
The answers can be sumed up as: roflmao. --92.202.58.79 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The slow motion edit war continues.  Most edits to these pages are now from IP editors, many of them pointlessly changing , and it is not clear that they are all constructive. Certes (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: There is an inconsistency in the table. It appears that the table treats decades as running from year 0 to year 9, not year 1 to year 10 (thus putting 1770 and 2170 in the 8th decades rather than the 7th), but centuries as running from year 1 to year 100 (putting  1900 in the 19th century, and 2300 in the 23rd century). Both systems are used, but we shouldn't mix them in one table. See Decade and Century. Meters (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I'll give this  a few more days and if no-one has objected I'll implement this change across all 14 articles. Meters (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Meters (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

text: 2024 is a leap year, not a common year, and Leap year starting on Monday already contains the line "The current year, 2024, is a leap year starting on Monday" Meters (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GF: [[Leap year starting on Monday]] 

message: Whats a Leap_year_starting_on_Monday in german? Please interwiki it. thnx. :-)  (nicht signierter Beitrag von 46.115.39.198 (Diskussion) 20:52, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)) 
: Ich bin baff. Den Quatsch gibt's in 18 Sprachen, darunter sogar auf friesisch. Wer braucht so was? -- TZorn 21:54, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
::(BK) Ich würde mal sagen haben wir nicht. Wir haben Schaltjahr und Kalender und trauen unseren Usern zu selbst ein bisschen zu rechnen oder zu Googeln. --Mauerquadrant (Diskussion) 21:57, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
:In der deutschen Wikipedia entspricht dieser Artikel Wikipedia:Was Wikipedia nicht ist Punkt 7. --Rôtkæppchen68 22:17, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
::War da mal Artikelanzahlwettbewerb? Jedenfalls kann man was draus machen: Schaltjahre sind schon mal sieben Artikel, weil es ja Schaltjahre mit jedem Anfangswochentag gibt. Noch mal sieben für die Nichtschaltjahre.
::Dann nochmal Artikel für einzelne Tage, zusammen 7 multipliziert 366, von "Sonntage am 1. Januar" bis "Samstage am 31. Dezember". Dann stellen wir uns ein paar Jahrzehnte an größere Kreuzungen und schreiben "Montage, an denen um 0.01 Uhr die Ampel der Schillerstraße rot war" bis "Sonntage, an denen um 23.59 Uhr der Querverkehr grün hatte". Spezifisch für Deutschland: "Bundestagssitzungen, die nicht 3 Stunden 48 Minuten dauerten" (sondern mehr oder weniger). Sind wieder ein paar Tausend. Kirschschorle (Diskussion) 23:10, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)
:::Das ist doch unnötig polemisch und unfair. In en sind das gerade mal 14 Artikel, die einen bestimmten Zweck erfüllen: jedem ohne Rechnerei ermöglichen, beliebige Wochentage in allen Jahren herauszufinden. Natürlich könnte man das alles auch in einen einzigen Artikel packen. Aber mit der Ampel in der Schillerstraße hat das wirklich nichts zu tun. --AndreasPraefcke (Diskussion) 08:27, 14. Mai 2012 (CEST)
:::: Naja, aber wenn ich einen Kalender für das Jahr 2024 haben will, schaue ich dann einfach auf einen Kalender (beliebiger Art) für das Jahr 2024, oder überlege ich mir, dass 2024 ein Schaltjahr beginnend mit einem Montag sein muss und schaue dann nach einem Kalender für Schaltjahre beginnend mit einem Montag in der Online-Enzyklopädie meines Vertrauens? --YMS (Diskussion) 09:08, 14. Mai 2012 (CEST)
--
The answers can be sumed up as: roflmao. --92.202.58.79 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leap year starting on Monday - Request for interwikilink on german village pump/ref desk and answers 

message: On Leap year starting on Wednesday, the calendar is currently created with . In early January of this year, there was a slow motion edit war over the show_year parameter (and, less controversially, year was changed from 1964 to 2020). As far as I can tell, neither side used edit summaries or otherwise discussed this change, and it's currently still set to off. Do we have a guideline or precedent for this, or should we come up with one now? I'd rather not have this fight again every January 1. The basic problem, of course, is that the template merely appends "2020" to the prose title, which looks nonsensical. But that could be overcome with a simple copyedit. And of course, if we're going with "leave it the way it is," we might want to throw in an HTML comment telling people not to change it. --NYKevin  03:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The slow motion edit war continues.  Most edits to these pages are now from IP editors, many of them pointlessly changing , and it is not clear that they are all constructive. Certes (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow motion edit war over display of years 

message: The table in this article says 1810 is in the second decade of a century but 1900 is in the tenth decade of a century. This means they're 8 decades apart; they have to be 9 decades apart because they have the same final digit and are exactly 90 years apart. Georgia guy (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1810 and 1900 

message: I just noticed a typo in “Daylight Savings Time.” It is “Daylight Saving Time” — no “s.” 71.212.203.193 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: The statements "The most recent year of such kind" and "The next one will be" only require one year, not two, to be listed for each. Meters (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  listing multiple years rather than the most recent and the next 

message: In the table near the bottom of the article dealing with the Gregorian Calendar, it says that 1990 and 1900 are both in the tenth decade of their respective centuries. This makes no sense unless you're saying a decade can have 11 years. Georgia guy (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an inconsistency in the table. It appears that the table treats decades as running from year 0 to year 9, not year 1 to year 10 (thus putting 1770 and 2170 in the 8th decades rather than the 7th), but centuries as running from year 1 to year 100 (putting  1900 in the 19th century, and 2300 in the 23rd century). Both systems are used, but we shouldn't mix them in one table. See Decade and Century. Meters (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th decade 

message: This article appears to be excessively orientated towards the US. Few people outside of the US have any regard for what "presidents day" is, let alone how this relates to the Gregorian calendar. Albie Smith (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too USA orientated 

message: The "Leap year starting on a ..." and "Common year starting on a ..." articles all contain an editing note starting with "To avoid arbitrary years, use the most recent or upcoming year of this type." Since there is still too much edit churning between the most recent and the upcoming years (for example, see , , , , , , , , , ,  by an IP today), I suggest that we eliminate the option of choosing which to use. We should either use "most recent", or we should use "upcoming". No choice.
I think the most recent such year is the best choice since some of the upcoming years are far enough in the future that we don't have year articles for them. Meters (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give this  a few more days and if no-one has objected I'll implement this change across all 14 articles. Meters (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Meters (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on calendar choice 

message: On 2024 it started on a monday so it should be changed 2A02:C7C:2C1A:AB00:40E5:6E12:EC20:CCC9 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 2024 is a leap year, not a common year, and Leap year starting on Monday already contains the line "The current year, 2024, is a leap year starting on Monday" Meters (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Needs to be updated