Talk:Gregorian calendar

Realignment

It probably should be made more clear that the Gregorian calendar reform did not realign the dates with the beginning of the Julian calendar, but rather realigned the dates to the Julian dates that the Catholic Church were use to using for Easter calculations in the 3rd century (already off by a couple days). Proleptic Gregorian Jan 1, 10CE is not the same day as Julian Jan 1, 10CE (and definitely off for dates before 4CE as the Julian calendar's leap years were being incorrectly applied for its first few decades, only fully corrected by the end of the first decade CE). — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The beginning of the Julian calendar was, in any case, BCE 45, when Julius introduced it, and the leap-year pattern took about half a century to settle down to the later standard of one every four years. Furthermore the year numbering we now use wasn't introduced until a few centuries later. The article does make clear that the reformers were required to ensure "that the date of the vernal equinox be restored to that which it held at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325", although I'm thereby left with a conundrum, since the CE 1582 offset of ten days was presumably in effect from 1500 March to 1700 February, an interval in which the two calendars agreed on which years are leap. That implies that three Gregorian cycles earlier – each of which reduces the gap by three days – from CE 300 March to CE 500 February they were off by one day; and CE 325 falls in that interval. The two calendars then coincide from CE 200 March 1st to CE 300 February 28th, the preceding interval between Julian-but-not-Gregorian leap years. (This then gives, twelve Gregorian cycles earlier, a gap of 36 days from BCE 4601 April to BCE 4501 January and, two centuries earlier, 38 days from BCE 4801 April to BCE 4701 January, in which interval falls the Julian day numbering scheme's start-point, Julian BCE 4713 January 1st, making that Gregorian BCE 4714 November 24th, which at least matches what I've seen written for that numbering.) So I'm a bit puzzled about the whole deal of the First Council of Nicea being the intended synchronization point. Eddy 2A02:FE1:7C:4D00:1A31:BFFF:FE27:3497 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The Julian calendar started on March. the change to January was done in the 19th century for some stupid reason. The change needs reformation as September, OCtober November and December are 7 8 9 and 10th in Latin. My IQ >> 160 (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not a forum for advocating change to things external to Wikipedia. We have more than enough trouble keeping Up with the way things actually are in RL and how they came to be that way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Failed verification of citation : no connection between calendar and geocentric theory

There is a cited reference (to the 'Clavius' entry in W Applebaum's Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution), offered in support of the statement that "the calendar continued to be fundamentally based on the same geocentric theory as its predecessor". But that cited source does not support that either the Julian or Gregorian calendar was based on geocentric theory. It confirms that Clavius had a leading role in the calendar reform, and it also reports that he was not a supporter of heliocentrism, but it carries no suggestion (and neither does any other source AFAIK) that his opinion on heliocentrism was involved in any way in the calendar reform process or substance, nor that the calendar was 'based' on geocentric theory. Terry0051 (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Common Era Mention where?

Whilst I'm not an expert, shouldn't there be some mention of the proposed Common Era (BCE/CE) Re-Labeling/controversy somewhere on the Page?

Regardless of what opinion one has on Reasons for that change being proposed, or any Execution thereof... I definitely remember a History professor in college, deciding on using the new notation Exclusively. And am aware of a Joe Rogan Interview of Neil Tyson, where he is rather frank about sticking with the use of BC/AD. Which sounds remarkably important for this page to at least Link to... Unless I'm missing something? 2600:1008:B12F:1C8D:15BD:7B72:DFB5:A309 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the article is primarily about the Gregorian reform of the Julian calendar and because dates in the Gregorian calendar can equally be represented using the AD prefix or the CE suffix, the era doesn't really matter. But as you have asked, I have added Common Era to the Gregorian calendar#See also list for completeness.

By the way, the Common Era is not 'proposed', it has been in use in Judaism for over 100 years and in scientific writing for the past 25 to 50. It has only become 'controversial' because of the rise of politically motivated fundamentalism, especially in the US (see Culture war#United States). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"Today" infobox is messy

The "Today" infobox is disorganised (illogical, messy); the sequence seems to follow some Abrahamic relugious order, only in part based in the number of users. I would rearrange the items in the infobox in a more logical way: the int'l/Western calendars grouped together, the ones from the Muslim world in their own group, and the Hebrew and Coptic calendars (both ancient in origin) somewhere together. I'd also make sure that "(Iran)" is added behind "Solar Hijri calendar", and "(int'l standard)" behind "Gregorian calendar". Suggestion:

• Gregorian calendar (int'l standard)
• Julian calendar
• Islamic calendar
• Solar Hijri calendar (Iran)
• Bengali calendar
• Hebrew calendar
• Coptic calendar

Arminden (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Political correctness fans might disapprove, but then let them use the alphabetical order - however, both are nonsensical under practical pov. The entire business world and most nations use Gregorian, and Julian is related to it; Muslims use AH, unless in Iran or Bengal; and religious Jews and Copts, counting well less than 30 mill. taken together, use their own. Arminden (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Arminden, can you centralise this proposal at template talk:Infobox calendar date today, please? And possibly self-revert or at least modify your comments about it at various talk pages, to direct readers to the new discussion? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I do often apply the 2nd solution, here I just wasn't aware of where "calendar central" would be. I'm trying to do some real life work now, so please feel free to take over, quoting me or not, but please keep the idea. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

There isn't a calendar wiki-project. This template replaced a variety of independently designed boxes of various sorts, so I guess it is as close as we can get to a "calendar central". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, call it as you like, it's the link you kindly offered, where the discussion is already taking place. Arminden (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Rule of thumb for Julian vs Greg. date

HI JMF. You have removed my edit from the lead with the justification:

"... it would be due in the Julian calendar article but it is undue in this one. Comparison with the (far more popular) Islamic calendar would be more due and I doubt we would have to include that."

I beg to disagree. Both the Julian and Gregorian are Christian calendars, so it does concern Christians calculating festival dates, and people from the Western world trying to figure out "old style" dates they come across. Many Eastern Orthodox Christians live by the "new style" calendar, but still celebrate their holidays by the "old style" one. For all these millions of people, having the "new date = old one + 13" rule somewhere handy is extremely useful. That's why I put it in the lead. Adding it also to the lead of the Julian calendar article is of course a good idea.

Muslims are a different category altogether, and Muslim calendar(s) are so fundamentally different, that no easy rule of thumb can be offered. Now because the Muslims can't have one, must we deny the Christians one as well? I absolutely don't see the logic in that. Considering your rational approach to things, I guess you just didn't actually fully think it through this time. Can we please agree to put it back in? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, items in the lead should summarise the essential points in the body. For an article of this size, that means a major section with subsections. What we have is a lot of material about why the JC was flawed and what was done about it from the mid 16th century to the early 20th century. The current conversion factor is the skin on the icing on that cake.

Per WP:DUE, the material should clearly be important and relevant to most readers and proportional in its scope. With all due respect, a very small proportion of readers of the Gregorian calendar article really have any interest in the current relation between dates in the Julian calendar and those in the Gregorian. The number of users of the JC is tiny, minuscule compared to users of the GC and tiny compared to users of the IC. Yes, it should be mentioned, but not in the lead. (And yes it would be equally undue to give the conversion to and from the Islamic calendar.) Conversely, as I said tersely in my edit summary, it would be an entirely due addition to the lead of Julian calendar, but I notice that you haven't done that. I would expect the Orthodox Christians to start from there, not from here. I assume you will do that now.

BTW, it is a relevant fact that Christians of whatever hue are a minority of the users of the GC. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I still disagree - it was one short sentence, offering useful practical advice. To whom? Over 120 million members of churches going by the JC, plus all the pilgrims & visitors who visit their countries, among those countries being the one obviously major destination, the Holy Land with all the main holy sites, and the All-Pravoslavnic Russia. While being there, only the JC counts. The pool of potential pilgrims from the entire Eastern Orthodox Church amounts to 230 million people, and lots of them do go on pilgrimage. Peanuts?

I'm not presuming to know which of the two articles, JC or GC, those people might go to first. True is that the English version would not be the first choice of many. It's as true though that many "small(er) languages" simply translate the enWiki article, which will always be much more elaborate than any self-made one, as I've just noted with the Romanian article. So enWiki is always sure to at least be a main source for all others.

I'm thinking in practical, reality-facing terms. I don't know any of those Wiki abrreviations and I truly believe not to need them: the Wiki principles I know well, as I do encyclopedic standards & practices (I've grown up among encyclopedias in 3-4 languages, and using or perusing through them constantly). Wiki adds a new aspect, it's constantly updated and serves immediate needs, also on the go, unlike the thick Meyer's, Larousse or Britannica tomes.

Pls check the numbers:

"The Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem [0.5 M], Russia [110 M], Serbia [10 M], Montenegro [?], Poland [?] (from 15 June 2014), North Macedonia [?], Georgia [?], and the Greek Old Calendarists and other groups [?] continue to use the Julian calendar..."

But I'm not counting on a change mind, so I'll follow your advice and edit the JC calendar. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Well let's see if other editors chip in. If the consensus disagrees with me, I will concede. But the fundamental point is that, in big articles like this one, every sentence needs to earn its keep and that stricture applies most especially to the lead section. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the abbreviations, they are mine. GC = Gregorian Calendar, JC = Julian Calendar, IC = Islamic Calendar. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm a big user of abbreviations myself, I just mentioned the linked Wiki abbreviations as not my thing. Yours were actually quite generic, but I'm a bit allergic to them. Arminden (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is this does not belong in the lead. Whether it's useful is irrelevant; the question is whether it is encyclopedic and conforms to Wikipedia guidelines, especially MOS:LEAD. A tidbit about how to convert between one particular calendar and the subject calendar does not seem due for the lead, and as it was placed, it seems a distracting non-sequitur. Also, this conversion is already stated in the infobox; if someone is looking for a quick guide to conversion, it seems they're more likely to see it in the table in the infobox, rather than reading through the whole lead. CodeTalker (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. That argument I'm much more open to, except that

- my edit mentioned that it's for now only (1900-2100), otherwise why would anyone bother to create a new calendar if it were forever a constant difference (D = J + 13)? Still concise, but containing everything that's needed, either stated or implied.

Year in various calendars (retrospectively inserted subsection header)

- I'm only using the phone, and the phone layout is such that one only sees the first lead paragraph before needing to do a lot of scrolling down.

- There are 2 infoboxes. The 1st is endless. The 2nd is only confusing things, apparently contradicting the +13 rule. To fit, it needs constant updating. I pressed on "refresh" and what comes up? "Purge this page"! Purging sounds FAR too scary & radical, so I give up, as 99% of the users would.

Conclusion: no good, period. Appears to be self-contradictory, not user-friendly (technical), in short: useless. Remember: the public is not the academics. I'm not a friend of dumbing down, may Zeus forbid, but of being user-friendly and practical-minded? You bet. Arminden (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the huge "2025 in various calendars" infobox, when viewed on mobile as the large majority of our readers do. Its purpose is to show that the GC is one of many. In my opinion, it needs to be moved down. I'll have a look and maybe Be Bold if I can find a better home for it.

The Today infobox is a lot more reasonable and useful but it needs to say somewhere that the date is reset automatically at 00:00 (UTC). If you live in NZ, for example, you'll have to wait. Or at least I think that this is what is happening! Which time zone are you in? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have boldly moved the giant table of other calendars down to the See Also section, which is the most logical place for it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)