Talk:List of calendars

message: The following proposed calendars should be discussed:
Bob McClenon's Reformed Weekly Calendar: (http://www.go2zero.com/rwc/rwc.html) and adapted from that:  Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html)
-----
These are just two of various proposed leap week calendars. I've listed, linked and discussed various proposals in (http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm).
The above proprosals suggest having months of 31, 30 and 30 days every three months and in 53-week years an additional one week month.
An alternative to this is to have months of 35, 28 and 28 days every three months and in 53-week years add a week to the last month. This is done by the Bonavian Civil Calendar in (http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/bonavian.html)
Also 13 months of 28 days with the leap week as a separate 7-day month has been proposed (http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/colligan.html).
Also there are numerous possible ways of defining which years have 53 weeks. Most of these make use of the fact that if there were 71 such years every 400 years, the 400 years would have exactly the same number of days as 400 Gregorian years. The only others actually proposed is 896 years with 159 years of 53 weeks and 834 years of 148 years of 53 weeks.
Karl Palmen 22 Dec 2004
Would this list make more sense as a category, so that it was always up to date? 
--Nantonos 16:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple categories already exist: Calendars, which includes Specific calendars, Obsolete calendars, Fictional calendars, and Proposed calendars. List of calendars is in Calendars and in its subcategory Specific calendars (I'm changing that). — Joe Kress 07:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed calendars

message: What makes the discordian calendar fictional, exactly? Or any of them? If people use it, it's real... right? And I'm sure there are people out there who use star wars and middle earth calendars. PopeJaimie 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But who actually uses the Discordian calendar? Can anyone make the claim that there is significant use of that calendar? I think the comparison with Star Wars and Middle Earth is a good one. Discoridianism is a parody religion and fictional. I doubt it's inclusion under "In Use" is warranted. ProfGiles (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discordian Calendar

message: Please also make sublists:
*Countries where governments mess (e.g., "98" for 2009: Taiwan, N. Korea) with the year (on many official documents)
*Countries where governments mess with other parts too...
and impact many people. Jidanni (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries where governments mess with the year 

message: When a new calendar comes into use, how does it become accepted and referenced in Wikipedia? One specific example that comes to mind is the Ehoah Kalendars: Australis, Borealis, and by combining the two the Globus Kalendar(http://ehoah.weebly.com/kalendars.html)? 65.92.205.173 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar Acceptance 

message: I want to bring to your attention that User:Dbachmann  is changing the grouping an thus classification of the calendars listed. Previously they were grouped according In Use and Obselete. This has been changed to 'Ancient and Traditional and Historical. I think such a change needs to be discussed. Perhaps a better change addressing all concerns could be made. Karl (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: great, sounds like a column "last recorded usage", if you feel like compiling it, but I still don't see how this is any kind of meaningful categorization. What qualifies as "current"? And why "print" specifically? Say there is a tradition of the Berber calendar being used in Timbuktu with several full-time scribes preparing handwritten copies every year (I just made that up). Would this make the calendar unfit for "currently used" because the printing press wasn't used? Also, you are aware, of course, that this puts the Shire calendar out of the "fictional" into the "currently used" category. In general, any pop culture item will receive orders of magnitude more printed references than ethnic or religious traditions alive somewhere in the third world. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is still starved for references, but at least we now have something that isn't entirely devoid of information beyond "these articles exist on Wikipedia". The main problem is the distinction between broad categories along cultural lines (like "Chinese calendar", "Hindu calendar" which discuss numerous regional or historical calendar variants) and specific reforms (such as Islamic calendar, Julian calendar, French Republican calendar). Also problematic are links that are really just calendar eras used with the Gregorian calendar (which are not, strictly speaking, separate calendars, just eras) and stuff like Lithuanian calendar, which is basically a "list of Lithuanian translations of the Gregorian month names and weekdays" (also not strictly speaking a separate calendar). A third class of problem arises from articles that are themselves too purely referenced to make head or tail of them, mostly "reconstructed" ethnic traditions mostly notable for their (not necessarily historical) use in ethnic nationalism, such as Bulgar calendar, Berber calendar, Yoruba calendar. I tagged these as "traditional/tribal" for now, but they should properly be dropped pending the addition of acceptable references. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Calendar Grouping 

message: The table identifies the Roman Republican Calendar as a solar calendar, which is wrong. It was a lunisolar calendar. The better-known Julian Calendar which replaced the Roman Republican Calendar was a solar calendar, but the Roman Republican Calendar was a lunisolar calendar. -- Bob99 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Republican Calendar 

message: Serbian, "Byzantin" calendar still in use in Serbia counts 7526 years (=2018)! No mention?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.139.87 (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbian Calendar forgotten?

message: I want to invite comment as to whether it is appropriate for this article to use the calendar of a particular religion as the reference scale for all the other calendars of many other religions and none. In my view, the (almost) religiously neutral Common Era is significantly more NPOV.
Per wp:ERA, I want to propose formally that the table entries that currently give a date using AD or BC notation (as a reference for its epoch or similar) be changed so as to use CE or BCE respectively. 
Your comments please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article does not focus on any one religion the AD/BC notation is fine, as it has been in English for centuries the predominant general-purpose notation. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Also note RfC not set up right, and AD/BC/CE/BCE are not calendars, they are notations for counting from a point in time about 2019 years ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but the article is written by and for a world-wide, 21st century, audience, not a 17th C British one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

text:  I acknowledge of course that "calendar" is not technically correct but it is a reasonable approximation in this context. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I wanted to test the water initially to see whether the work to set up a full RFC would be worthwhile.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "but the article is written by and for a world-wide, 21st century, audience" as a justification to exclude AD and use CE instead may convince other publications but is not in accord with WP:ERA. Also the reason applies to most WP articles so this discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't seem to have made clear my proposal. WP:ERA says that the era first used in an article should be retained unless there is a substantial justification to change it due to article content. I believe that this  condition applies (but then I would, that's why I am proposing it). Even so, I recognise that it is a controversial change so a consensus for change is needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)
Unless it would offend a rule that I don't know about, I propose next to leave an invitation to participate in this discussion, at the articles for the linked calendars.  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Appropriate reference calender to use. (Religiously neutral CE/BCE v Christian AD/BC). 

message: కొప్పర్తి. సమూయేలు అనునేను 2007 సంవత్సరంలో క్రొత్త కాలెండర్ రూపొందించాను దాని ప్రకారం ఈ రోజు తేదీ 1-02-2021  /  24-04-2072 మెస్సీయ జననం తరువాత తేదీతో సమానంగా ఉంది ,మీ సహకారాన్ని మాకు అందిస్తే ఖచ్చితంగా మా కాలెండర్ ను ప్రవేశపెట్టడానికి సిద్ధంగా ఉన్నాము K.puliraju(samuel) (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the english language version of Wikipedia. Please go to https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%AE%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%9F%E0%B0%BF_%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%87%E0%B0%9C%E0%B1%80 for Wikipedia in the Telugu language. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  క్రొత్త కాలెండర్ ప్రపంచానికి పరిచయం 

message: What evidence is there that Koreans have a five-day week? According to the Wikipedia article on the Korean calendar, the Koreans don't even have any concept of weekdays, so that the article discusses the Korean names for the days of the seven-day Western week. --Susurrus (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean week