Talk:Calendar reform

message: As a recent calendar-reform proposal, I thought this deserved mention. I just want to note that I am not Henry, this is not intended to be promotion or spam, it's just that the article is so stubby that adding a paragraph about a new proposal does sort of put it out of balance. But I don't see how to describe it in less than a paragraph... and I think that citing sources is important. If they look too link-spammy let me document them here for the record in case anyone decides they shouldn't all be in the article. I think the proposal is a bit nutty, by the way, and his page describing it contains some astonishingly flippant and dismissive remarks about possible objections. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: C&T Calendar

message: I felt the need to expand this page. Previously, it was stub-like, with a list attached, and said little about these proposals.
I agree with B.d.mills and others, above, that the original revisions of this article - i.e. the long, drawn out explanation of ONE proposal (C&T) - was not appropriate. However, going into the reform of the JULIAN calendar is also wrong, and I'm glad to see that didn't happen. That's done very well in the Gregorian calendar article.
As it stood, there were blanket statements made in the arrticle that do not apply to all calendar reform proposals. It pointed out the flaws of the calendars with "null" or "off-calendar" days, and pointed people in the direction of the 53-week calendar. That's not very complete, and its inaccurate because not all suggested calendars suffer from those flaws.
My revision hits on:
* Perpetual calendar proposals and
* 13-month calendar proposals
Each calendar proposal is BRIEFLY mentioned in the text, WITHOUT much elaboration, since that's done in the other articles. But it's an injustice to these proposals to have left this intro as is, since it said little about the reform movement, which has been - and is - quite active. 
Comments welcomed, and bear in mind I am not criticizing previous editors in particular. This was a very well maintained short article. Nhprman 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformed Reform article

message: Japanese Era calendar is simply an established naming system used in Japan, and is not a "reform" of the Gregorian calendar.
The Holocene calendar is a proposal to re-number the calendar from the Holocene epoch. Mention should be made of that proposal on that page. Nhprman 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering Years v. Reforming the Gregorian 

message: Calendar reform is not just proposed changes to the Gregorian calendar.  The Gregorian calendar was itself a reform -- and a reform of the Julian calendar, itself a reform.  I'm adding some history.  Goldfritha 17:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lede is wrong

message: This article is going to be made worthless, I can see. Someone went on a jihad seeking the deletion of articles, and now, all reference to calendars that were subject of deleted articles are going to be PURGED? It was suggested in AfD discussions that these calendars at least get a *mention* in this main article, but apparently, elimination was the goal. This proves the point I've been making at the AfD discussions - that deletionism is going to make this encyclopedia sterile and a useless resource. Even a paragraph noting that  I hope people derive a lot of enjoyment making articles LESS informative.- Nhprman List 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The core policy of attribution requires that information in Wikipedia be attributable to a reliable published source. No such source has been shown for the Sol or New Earth Calendars, so the removal of such information is entirely within policy, noting particularly that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I would also ask you to be more civil in your comments. --Pak21 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ask that you not be so aggressive and selective in your application of disputed GUIDELINES as if they were settled POLICIES. Your interpretations are flat out wrong, and are damaging to this encyclopedia. I'm sorry if that's not civil, but your actions are not appropriate. There are enough other locations for these articles online that their elimination of them here does not eliminate them entirely from the public record, so it's enough to know that your efforts at throwing them down a memory hole were unsuccessful. Goodbye. - Nhprman List 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are well aware that both attribution and What Wikipedia is not are fully established policies, not guidelines. Please stop misrepresenting the facts. --Pak21 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I'm afraid I agree.  I don't really believe these AfD nominations were made in good faith.  Certainly there was no call for deletion as opposed to a merge and redirect to appropriate articles such as Lunisolar calendar and Leap week calendar.  I notice this article is being revamped now, I can assist when I have time.  Frankly, I had planned to ask for a temporary undeletion eventually so that the material could be included in appropriate subheadings that already exist.  Fortunately, while there isn't grounds to keep these articles independently, even Pak21 (who is quite handy at stating 'rules') would have difficulty finding a reason why these well-written articles could not be included under appropriate sub-headings.  Wiki isn't made better by these deletions, and the end result will be to the detriment of other v. good articles on calendars and calendar reform.  Kind regards, --Greatwalk 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a call for deletion. It was made by me, and supported by the community and the admin who closed the AfD debates. End of story. --Pak21 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think the calls for deletion should have been combined to get to a consensus about what requirements a proposals shall fulfill to remain on Wikipedia. Anyhow, I have now made most of the text more general and commented out most specific proposals so they can be easily re-included if thought valuable enough. It is not perfect of course, so please everybody improve. Maybe there should be an article on proposed calendars separate from this one, which deals with reforms that actually were enforced. Christoph Päper 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Sol and New Earth Calendar references

message: In the section on the change-over from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, it says: "This was perceived by the public as missing those days, although they were in fact committed as several February 29ths during the preceding centuries."
I thought this was a myth; that is, that the public thought they had had 11 days taken from their lives. Wasn't it the case that the outcry was because they would have to pay their taxes 11 days earlier than usual?
I don't understand "committed as" - what does this mean? Wouldn't "restored" be a better term? — Paul G 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Calendar_%28New_Style%29_Act_1750 -- Churchh (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Missing" days 

message: Two articles dealing with related subjects - the World Calendar, 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) 09:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two related Articles 

message: I've proposed merging Symmetry454 here. The topic does not appear to have sufficient notability to merit its own article (Google books hits 0, Worldcat hits 0, Google scholar hits 1, JSTOR hits 0), but might merit a brief mention in this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a lot of references, and GOOD ones (Wall St. Journal, Toronto Star, Discovery Channel, etc.) are certainly plausible and count as "notable" sources. The problem is, you have removed all the content, and I believe that is misguided. Please explain why you have done this. - Nhprman  15:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Not quite. I removed only the unreferenced content, as I hope the edit summary "remove unreferenced material per WP:Verifiability" makes quite clear. What then remained was regrettably short; I nominated it for deletion, but that did not find consensus. Now I have suggested merging it here (it'll be a sentence or so, with GOOD references). This wiki is not the place for fringe theories. Of course, if you can show me where this proposal has been discussed in a peer-reviewed academic publication, I'll be happy to recognise its non-fringe status and remove the merge tag, though the COI problem will still remain. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So your judgement is that Calendar Reform is a "fringe theory?" and that's where you're starting in your assessment of content for this article? First: It's not a 'theory' it's an academic area of study and the creator of that reform proposal is an academic with credentials, and with decent sources that clearly are "notable." Second, it's not up to you to decide what is and is not fringe. Otherwise, why are there articles here about UFOs? I suppose those are next in the deletionist crosshairs, eh? I'm always truly amazed at the attitude of Wikipedians who seek to limit and eliminate all content from WP based on purely judgement calls like this. You shouldn't be getting away with blanking pages that have survived AfD's, either. - Nhprman  20:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion, [[Symmetry454]] 

message: Spring: 2 months or 55 days or 8 weeks from Monday. February, 24 days; March, 31days.
Summer: 3 months or 91 days or 13 weeks from Sunday. April, 30 days; May, 31 days; June, 30 days. 
Canicula: 2 months or 62 days or 9 weeks from Sunday. July, 31 days; August, 31 days.
Autumn: 3 months or 91 days or 13 weeks from Saturday. September, 30 days; October, 31 days; November, 30 days. 
Winter: 2 months or 62 days or 9 weeks from Saturday. December, 31 days; January, 31 days.
Yearend: 4-5 days. Yearend 1st, Friday; Yearend 2nd, Saturday. Yearend 3rd-5th, Sunday.orienome (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Calendar reform proposals are a dime a dozen. Only proposals that have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources should be mentioned in the article. See WP:Notability. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  And for others there’s still Wikia. — Christoph Päper 20:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Seasons Calendar

message: In the article, only the reform of the solar year is at stake, but the reform of 1582 was equally a reform of the lunar year. In other words, my impression is that the Gregorian reform as a whole has unhappily escaped the article.Ulrich Voigt (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The lunar aspects of the Gregorian reform are discussed at Gregorian calendar#Preparation. Perhaps a phrase or sentence should be inserted into this article to refer to that discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Gregorian Reform

message: has removed links to calendars.wikia.com, referencing WP:ELNO without citing a specific part. I assume the reason for removal was the currently twelfth point listed there: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. The Calendars site at Wikia lists several designs and proposals that lack the notability to be included in Wikipedia, hence may be of further interest to readers of this article. I don’t know any other site that covers as many calendars in a neutral fashion. If there is one please go ahead and link that instead, otherwise I believe this is a case where we shouldn’t take WP:LINKSTOAVOID too literal or as too strict and therefore allow links to Wikia. — Christoph Päper 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the design and proposal articles are credited to English Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR). Others are unverifiable research. In short, the site is not valuable enough to warrant ignoring the external links guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many proposals are not notable enough for Wikipedia and, by definition, most of them would be considered original research here. The same discussion has occurred on most articles about proposals that we deemed notable and verifiable enough for Wikipedia (e.g. Sym454 or Hanke/Henry). That’s why Wikia is an appropriate place for them. But take a moment to think about who’s most likely to read this very article and what additional information they would seek beyond an encyclopedia entry – for some, that certainly includes stuff other people have made up one day at school and guidelines on how to invent a custom (fictional) calendar, so they’re not reinventing the wheel and won’t be stepping into common pitfalls. If there‘s a better resource than calendars.wikia.com for that kind of information, please add it, otherwise it’s a valueable and beneficial link for some readers of this article. It may also help to stop some editors from adding their (favorite) proposals to Wikipedia (again). — Christoph Päper 10:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of having external links at all is to provide information that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Stuff people have made up one day at school, etc is by definition not encyclopedic. We're not a directory of all the sites that people might be interested in. And we don't add inappropriate links just to prevent bad edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendars at Wikia 

message: Brasilis Freak (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Brasilis Freak: You need to make a specific request, so we know what you want changed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016 

message: Do we have an agreed-upon list of advantages and disadvantages of calendar designs? 
This should be applied to the articles on specific calendars, e.g. World Calendar, Hanke-Henry Permanent Calendar, International Fixed Calendar, Symmetry454 Calendar etc. IFC is currently being tagged with  by IP User 91.10.44.33 for this reason. — Christoph Päper 09:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and disadvantages of calendar designs 

message: Include A Bioregional Calendar as seen here: http://astuc.ca/abc.htm 66.203.191.30 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what Wikia is for. — Christoph Päper 18:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018 

message: :Astrolynx, please use a user name AstroLynx that links to somewhere rather than a page that does not exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgru001 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  See talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned earlier having a WP home page is optional and I am certainly not the only WP editor without a homepage. If you have reasons to doubt the sincerity of my edits or the use of multiple identities on WP then by all means open a discussion on the appropriate noticeboards. Please use this talk page only for the improvement of this article. And you can also reach me on my own talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: I only asked you twice to sign your comments (which you have forgotten again -- so now three times). If you have issues with my editing behaviour then perhaps Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations is the proper avenue to address your concerns. AstroLynx (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Astrolynx home page

message: In the section #Reference 4 goes to www.timeanddate.com Tgru001 proposes using http://www.math.harvard.edu/computing/javascript/Calendar/ as a source. This appears to be a copy of Fourmilab by John Walker.
I object to using the version at Harvard for two reasons. First, it is used in the context of a Javascript example, an is not presented as a correctly functioning calendar converter. Whoever put there did not undertake to keep it up to date with any corrections Mr. Walker might issue. Also, the credit to Mr. Walker is marginal and the hyperlink give one the impression this example and Mr. Walker have some connection to Harvard; I doubt that is true (but I'm not sure).
I use the original version myself, and have never observed any errors. That said, Mr. Walker is a successful software developer, but I have not seen any publication indicating he is qualified in the area of calendars. I'm not sure he would satisfy the guidance at WP:SELFPUB. Also, the software has a peculiar convention that I regard as incorrect. Walker describes this convention as follows:
While one can't properly speak of “Gregorian dates” prior to the adoption of the calendar in 1582, the calendar can be extrapolated to prior dates. In doing so, this implementation uses the convention that the year prior to year 1 is year 0. This differs from the Julian calendar in which there is no year 0—the year before year 1 in the Julian calendar is year −1. The date December 30th, 0 in the Gregorian calendar corresponds to January 1st, 1 in the Julian calendar. 
All in all, I'd rather find some other source to cite. But some of the good sources are at https:www.usno.navy.mil/USNO which is not available to those outside the US. Other good sources are print, which is not ideal for a page that is contentious and frequently vandalized. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Use ''Fourmilab'' as a source?

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Cotsworth calendar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Cotsworth calendar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cotsworth calendar" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]