Talk:Armenian calendar

message: Addition (Monday 2014-2-17): The Encycoopedia Britannica (Volume 6, Chronology, P.673) says, The Era is 552AD on July 9 (not July 11 as this Wikipedia article has been altered to read when it once read correctly even before I submitted). The August 11 date as new year is also listed in Britannica as the Ecclesiastical version and only this version has the 6 epagum days for leap year to keep this new year version of a Koyak month on Julian August 11 (as Egyptian Coptic keeps Thoth on Julian August 29 by its Epagum 6 on August 29 to create a Thoth 1 new year on Aug 30 before our Feb 29 leap day makes it fall back to Aug 29 for three years). Thus as Coptic whose Era is sometimes claimed as 284AD, was created in 27bc Aug 30 to 25bc Aug 29; so too it would seem the ecclesiastical was not created until the 552AD Era of July 9 became Julian August 11 in 1880AD and began to add the epagum day 6 as this article mentions Aug 11 Era and 6 epagum days.
This article contradicts major mathematical laws of numbers. A 1460-year date of a 365-day calendar will lose 365 leap days and fall on the same Julian date in these 1460 years. Thus the line that claims 6 days in leap year contradicts the statement that leap year 1320ad in this article has two new years days, first January 1 (before leap day Feb 29) and then December 31. Using 6 days every 4 years would keep the new year on this articles July 11. Frank Parise Book Of Calendars lists all new years based on 552ad July 9 (not July 11), though July 11 is the Persian Koyak 1 (used as Persian Zoroaster new year from 388bc onward) on Egyptian Koyak 6 because it is five days after Egyptian Koyak 1 of July 6 used by Persian Yezdezred as new year from 632ad onward) which is a strong support for a July 11 instead of Frank Parise Book Of Calendars July 9, Egyptian Koyak 4.
The formerly listed example dates in 1312ad and 1582ad were correct, but they are all three a 365-day calendar correctly taken from the era of 552ad July 9 (Book Of Calendars- Frank Parise). However, in 1460 years this comes to Julian July 9 in 2012ad as the full cycle and that is Gregorian July 22 not article's July 24 (J.July 11). The Correlation with Egypt section totally ignores the rest of article since 2369bc G.June 22 is J.August 11 (neither date being the debated Julian July 9 or July 11) and 2369bc G.August 11 is J.August 31 (which also is neither the debated Julian July 9 or July 11). Is this 2369bc section thus written by someone else. Or is the whole article written by someone who cannot do math because some dictatorial administrator will label real math as original research. This is truly pathetic and even disgusting to even consider any millions of dollars donated to being this way. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrid Inconsistency 

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 ✉ 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: Isn't it so that the extra days can be 5 in non-leap years or 6 in leap years? If so, then this should be specifically mentioned. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leap years 

message: Even though this is a common misperception (not without some justification), the main article should not suggest that the Armenian calendar had 13 months. (The name for that so-called "13th month", Avelyats, means superfluous because of course it held the five or six days that didn't fit into the 12 months.) Consider that in the main article, the very next correctly shows that the Armenians named every day of their months, yet those day names DID NOT APPLY to the five Avelyats. Why not? Because the Avelyats was not considered a month. Maybe modern people think it is easier for us to just lump the Avelyats in with the months, but that's evidently not how they were viewed. And of course, the Armenians did not have a month that was shorter than a week. So I suggest that, for the sake of accuracy, even though it might make the main article a bit less pretty, the chart with the month names should be corrected to show only 12 month names, and the Avelyats be separated out. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 Months, not 13; Split off 13th? 

message: Is this still in use? If so, for what purposes? If not, when did it stop being used? The article does not make this clear at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.22.187 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still in use?