Talk:World Calendar

message: I propose the section about the religious objections be expanded into a more general criticism section. A general objection can be more generally based around weekly work and study patterns with respect to celebrations of anniversaries. Most people around the world celebrate anniversaries for many occasions, e.g. birthdays, weddings, memorials for a deceased one, fixed-date religious festivals, national celebrations. And, obviously, such anniversaries can occur on any possible date. With such a calendar, if someone was born on a date which corresponds to a Sunday (with respect to this calendar), he will always have his birthday on a Sunday, and the celebration will always occur on a day of rest (assuming Sunday will still be the day of rest). However, someone born on a Tuesday would always either have to celebrate his birthday on a work day (or celebrate it on another day). Having a year which can start on any day of the week (as in most if not all calendars used worldwide) actually has advantages compared to the proposed alternative.NabilStendardo (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages 

message: Didn't JRR Tolkien publish this very calender earlier?  He included it one of his books (which i don't remember).  The only difference between it and the world calendar is that tolkien stuch his extra day in the very middle of the year.  Wikipedia has an artical about this... --T-rex 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Shire calendar seems more like a Leap Week calendar like the Symmetry454 calendar proposal than the World Calendar, although the Shire includes "other" intercalary days into the calendar to make it "right" and fails to start on January 1, as the World and Gregorian calendars do. Nhprman 01:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shire Calendar]] 

message: "The World Council of Churches later laid out requirements any reformed calendar had to fulfill to be accepted by the Christian churches, which include the uninterrupted seven-day week. [citation needed]"
:I do wish the person who originated that quote could find a citation, even if it's offline. The person may have been thinking about the Roman Catholic Church (not a WCC member) which DEFINITELY said (at Vatican II in 1963) that any reform must "retain and safeguard a seven-day week with Sunday, without the introduction of any days outside the week, so that the succession of weeks may be left intact." 
:As for the World Council of Churches, in an article noting various attempts of the group to seek a common date for Easter, noted that it opposed breaking up the 7-day week, which the World Calendar does. Here's the link, and the full quote, with a few sentences before and after, for context): Around the same time, discussion was beginning in secular circles especially in Western Europe concerning the possibility of establishing a fixed day for Easter, such as the Sunday following the second Saturday in April, so as to facilitate commercial planning and public activities. In addition, proposals for introducing a new fixed calendar were being advanced, for similar utilitarian reasons. After World War II the context for discussion of such issues changed in several ways. International secular initiatives received little support. The churches were especially opposed to any calendar reform which would break the cycle of the seven-day week. On the other hand, many churches continued to express interest in the idea of a common day, whether movable or fixed, for the celebration of Easter/Pascha." I think this merits mention in the article, and this serves as evidence of the WCC's opposition to blank days, even if it doesn't lay out the guidelines stated in the original notation. - Nhprman List 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits and problems 

message: Concerning this edit : It is not planned to introduce this calender anywhere. Useful as it might be, wile there are no actual intentions to introduce it in a wide scale, calling the end of 2006 a "preview" is rather misleading. In light of that I cannot see how my edit can be considered non-NOPV. Also, doesn't the term "preview" imply some kind of intention? — Mütze 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realistic 

message: This really reads like an advertisement. Superm401 - Talk 08:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The World Calendar article is ABOUT The World Calendar, an idea.  The history section documents misconceptions and incorrect details that have come and gone during the article’s composition.  If TWC is a good idea and facts that remain are accurate, its unfinished past potentially has a future.  If that tends to sound like promotion (advertising), please specify which portions need review.  User:TWCAdirector – 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Shouldn't the word "Calendar" be capitalized here, even in the article title? This isn't the "World calendar" which implies that the world possesses it already, but the World Calendar, a copyrighted name of a specific calendar. Ive seen it changed a couple of times to a lower case "c" and I believe that is not warranted. Nhprman List 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The World Calendar" is a proper noun.  Elisabeth Achelis was very specific about this.  The page title should be changed to "The World Calendar", but I have not yet sufficiently studied 'Moving a Page'.  The page history should be preserved.  Thank you!  User:TWCAdirector – 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moving a page is pretty straightforward.  I'll do it if there are no objections (the page history will be preserved). Jaksmata 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I already explained on my Talk page that I don’t see why we should violate WP:TITLEFORMAT here. Also, if that’s supposed to be a direct quote from Elizabeth Achelis’ autobiography, I find it strange that she would speak of herself in the third person. — Christoph Päper 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Regarding the examples in WP:NCTHE, the World Calendar is used much like the United States, therefore lowercase the in prose and not definite article in the lemma. — Christoph Päper 06:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote supplied above explicitly states otherwise: "The" is part of the title, as in The Old Man and the Sea. Checking the books she wrote (, ,  - Google Books has her autobiography on snippet view) all consistently capitalise the article in running text. Arcorann (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a proper title, the article would remain and was title-cased, but this only applies to Achelis' work "The World Calendar" published in 1937, not to the calendar design known as the World Calendar. Achelis and her coauthors consistently drop the "The" as soon as they are putting an attribute, most often "perpetual", in front of it, which is evidence that it is not actually part of the name since that would require phrases like "the perpetual The World Calendar". — Christoph Päper 11:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pointing that out. While there is precedent for keeping the article in this case (e.g. The Beatles) the guideline isn't specific enough to determine what to do in this case, and I haven't made a survey of secondary sources (as an aside, one of the documents in the Journal of Calendar Reform quoted from a Congressional Record about the calendar -- on checking the record itself, I found that it referred to the calendar consistently in lowercase), so I'm willing to accept that as a justification. Arcorann (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: World Calendar capitalization

message: The Benefits and problems section has several problems.  Rather than enumerating opposing viewpoints on the calendar, it only advertises the benefits of the calendar. (Maybe the section should be renamed?) It only mentions "problems" in the context of refuting them, in an essay or debate style.
The "proponents" and "supporters" of The World Calendar are obviously those associated with The World Calendar Association, but the "opponents" mentioned are not referenced anywhere.  These opponents are supposedly "religious-based" – from other comments on this talk page it would appear to be the WCC – references to relevant information from that organization should be included in the article.
These "facts" are missing references:
*Opponents point out that intercalary days that are counted outside the usual seven-day week disrupt the traditional weekly cycle.
*The role of leaders of religions' influence on the U.S. government's decision at the U.N. in 1955 not to recommend further study.
*The existence/non existence of a scripture stating "Thou shall not worship two consecutive days in a row" and other pseudo-scriptures (This sounds like original research – unless you're quoting somebody notable, these types of arguments have no place in Wikipedia).  In any case, the debate writing style used here is inappropriate.
*Religious-based opponents to The World Calendar object to Sabbath day "drift" that The World Calendar imposes.
*Who are the people with the "religious-based objection" that Sabbath days have to be exactly 7 days apart? (If the answer is the WCC, do they "lack authority," and if so, reference it.)
*Notable arguments in favor of or against The Word Calendar that address the day the earth was created, the inviolability of the seven-day week, and the existence/non existence of a solar system equivalent that defines the man-made week.  Again, this looks like original research.  Again, the debate writing style used here is inappropriate.
Please keep in mind: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  If you are a proponent of The World Calendar, I wish you luck, but keep your personal opinions on your own web site and out of Wikipedia articles.
I don't like the idea of deleting large amounts of information from articles, but this section looks like it needs severe pruning.  If this is, as I suspect, just somebody on a soapbox, and nobody supplies references for this section, I'll delete the non-encyclopedic content within a few days. Jaksmata 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, 203.17.70.161, for helping with this before I got back around to it! I'm leaving on the unreferenced tag for now, but at least it doesn't sound like someone's scolding us for not using their calendar any more. Jaksmata 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More problems in Benefits and problems 

message: The correct spelling of the intercalary days of the Worlds Calendar are "Worldsday" and "Leapyear Day" not "Worlds Day" and "Leap Year Day" – see the World Calendar Association web site.  I don’t know why they spelled them that way, but that’s how it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaksmata (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of intercalary day names 

message: A few months ago, I replaced what I thought was a confusing calendar image with a simplified one.  The image uploaded by Janezdrilc is unarguably "more concise," but rather than more simple as he suggests, I believe it is more confusing.  The image has been added to the article again as an alternate representation of the World Calendar. I'm not going to remove the image twice and spark an edit war, but I am requesting comments from other editors.
I think that the image showing a separate table for each month is easier for an average person to understand, since it resembles traditional calendars as much as possible.  On the other hand, the "concise" calendar image breaks tradition by showing days of the week vertically, overlapping months, and using confusing, color-coded footnotes to represent days that the reader has to mentally place into the calendar.
If we really wanted the most concise representation, we could always use something like this oversimplification in C++ format:
 Weekday = ? Day == Intercalary : Intercalary :
   ? Month % 3 == 0 : Day % 7 : ? Month % 3 == 1 : Day % 7 + 3 : Day % 7 + 5;
But I think it would be inappropriate likewise.  ;-) Jaksmata 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the only article using the template. I've substed it in & I'm deleting it per WP:T3. Jimp 09:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar images  

message: I'm bothered by the unnecessary (and asymmetrical) exposition of religious practices in the "objections" section:
" Jews worship on Saturday, the Sabbath Day, on the basis of the Ten Commandments' injunction to "Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8). Christians worship on Sunday, the Lord's Day, on which they believe Christ rose from the dead. Although for Muslims worshiping Allah (Arabic word for God) 5 times a day is compulsory on all seven days of the week, Friday is marked special because of the Jum'ah (Arabic word for Friday) prayer that cannot be performed individually and must be attended in Masjid (Arabic word for Mosque) or other open places of public gathering. In addition to this, Qur'an also tells that Friday was the day Adam was made."
I think it's sufficient to point out that, by the tenants of the Abrahamic religions, specific weekly religious observances are required. The level of detail given for Islam comes across as religious instruction.
I don't usually edit Wiki articles, and I'm going to leave it to the regular monitors to see if they concur and to change this if they agree. 66.74.34.204 (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Religious Details 

message: Two articles dealing with related subjects - calendar reform, a uniform date for Easter and date notations are at 
http://users.bigpond.net.au/renton/301.htm and
http://users.bigpond.net.au/renton/302.htm
Nercat (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two related Articles 

message: The English Wikipedia has two articles, Armelin's calendar (1887, Gustave Armelin) and World Calendar (Elisabeth Achelis, 1930.), which describe the same calendar. Why two articles? Kalendar (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In this calendar, first month is 31 days. in the other, third month. yoisef yitzchok-talk, 18 Shevat 5781. 07:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles on one calendar?