Talk:Gregorian calendar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Conversion from Julian to Gregorian dates

Jc3s5h
Your table is not compatible with the table in the reference: Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars. sigurdhu (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not my table. I'm not a big fan of it. But your change did not accurately reflect page 417 from the Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris (1961). Jc3s5h (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

error in describing the difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars

There is an error in the following sentence in the Description paragraph: The only difference is that there is one day less in the leap month (February) every four hundred years.

In fact, in the Gregorian calendar there is one less day in the leap month once every century except in centuries divisible by 400. So, I propose the above sentence from the Description is changed to: The only difference is that there is one day less in the leap month (February) once each century except in centuries divisible by four (e.g. 1600, 2000) which retain their leap day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickanderson (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Should AD be replaced with CE in this article?

When I see AD (Anno Domini) be used in most historical articles I usually change it to CE, (Common Era) as CE is more inclusive and accurate. However, I'm not sure whether this applies here, seeing as the calendar was originally created using AD. Any opinions on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxi25554 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No. The AD notation is associated with Christianity, the process that lead to the calendar was started by Pope Gregory XIII, and he ordered the Catholic Church to adopt the calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the MOS:ERA policy says that either style is valid BUT the style first used in the article should be retained unless there is a consensus that the 'wrong' one has been used – for example using AD in an article about Judaism or Islam, using CE in an article about Christianity. So there is zero prospect of the era style in this article being changed, for the reason that Jc3s5h gives and more. If you create a new article, you may use CE but you must not unilaterally change the era of any existing article. In practice, this policy has been invoked rather more often to prevent articles that began as CE being changed to AD than the other way round. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

In "Description" the sentence "The only difference is that there is one day less in the leap month (February) every four hundred years". It should say three days less every four hundred years instead of one day. The error was introduced by User:Enthusiast01 in the changes he did in 25 December when he replaced the original "The Gregorian reform omitted a leap day in three of every 400 years and left the leap day unchanged." Psxlover (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt and the chance to comment. On a re-reading of the quote of the United States Naval Observatory at beginning of article, three leap day in every 400 years are not to be treated as a leap year. My mistake. I will correct it. Enthusiast01 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Proleptic before 1582?

We say: The Gregorian calendar is proleptic before 1582 (calculated backwards on the same basis, for years before 1582), ...

I guess I can imagine some abstruse scientific contexts in which it's important to know what the Gregorian date would have been, for events prior to 1582, had the Gregorian calendar been introduced earlier than it actually was. But for general purposes the Julian calendar ended on 4 October 1582 (OS), and the Gregorian came into existence the next day, 15 October 1582 (NS), and to talk about Gregorian dates prior to then is pretty meaningless, because we only ever use Julian dates for pre-1582 events. So, in what sense is it proleptic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A date format that you may see sometimes is 2021-06-22. This format is specified by a standard published by the International Standards Organization, ISO 8601. (Some people may be using this format without ever having heard of ISO 8601). The standard specifies, among other things, that it always uses the Gregorian calendar. So if someone were to write 1500-01-01, and assert that it is written in the ISO 8601 format, they would be asserting that it is a proleptic Gregorian date.

However, because the Gregorian-only requirement is not widely known, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the pre-1582 dates that purport to be in the ISO 8601 format are really Julian dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Law of unintended consequences: I suspect the ISO committee just wanted to rule out 1500 AM, 1500 AH etc when they specifed Gregorian-only? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any record of there discussions. Who knows what they were thinking. My suspicion is they were a bunch of computer nerds focused on things like airline tickets and pay checks. I the first version they even allowed two digit years (e.g. 92 for 1992). If they couldn't think ahead a decade, I strongly suspect they had no idea that there were (and are) people alive who's birth date on their birth certificate was written in the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

You should mention it was invented in the University of Salamanca in 1515, there's not a single mention of this in the whole article.176.87.9.128 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, this is the source: Carabias Torres, Ana María (2012). Salamanca y la medida del tiempo. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. ISBN 978-84-9012-076-7.

The proposal from Salamanca is already in the article, under Gregorian calendar#Background. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian calendar

The Gregorian calendar as the Christian calendar is a huge misnomer. It is one of several Christian calendars, but is largely used more as a civil calendar throughout the world rather than an ecclesiastical calendar, although it can be referred to as one of several Christian calendars due to its propagation by the Catholic Church, invention or modification by a Catholic Pope, and adoption by many Western Christian denominations. 129.174.240.247 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does the phrase "Christian calendar" appear. Can you be more specific about which aspect of the article is of concern, bearing in mind the history of this calendar. By the way, the article does mention the Julian calendar (used in Eastern Christendom) and the notations Anno Domini (AD) and Common Era (CE). And Christian calendar is a wp:disambiguation article that lists four possible meanings of the term. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Until late last night (Nov. 13, 2021) or the early hours of this morning (Nov. 14, 2021), Christian calendar redirected to the Gregorian calendar until it was turned into a disambiguation page. 129.174.182.85 (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. Amazing that nobody noticed such blatant POV before. I'll put it on my watchlist in case someone reinstates the nonsense version. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abadams27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

to rename "Polish" to "Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth"

Between 1569-1795, the state is not called "Poland", but the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" had been named.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulti.paladin (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to reference true origins of calendar at the University of Salamanca in Spain

It should be duly noted that the Gregorian calendar was first created by scholars at the University of Salamanca in Spain. Omitting this important fact is historically misleading, and does not give credit to the people who really created it (vs the one who implemented it). 136.56.139.171 (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What's your source for this claim? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

"In addition, the reform also altered the lunar cycle used by the Church to calculate the date for Easter, because astronomical new moons were occurring four days before the calculated dates."

Please look this paragraph over carefully. I believe it is being stated backwards. Days have to be added to the lunar calendar (8 in 2500 years). That means that the calendar new moons were coming sooner than the astronomical new moons and not the reverse. It can be confusing. Gal2man (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This will need some thought and people familiar with the topic will probably contribute in a day or two. Meanwhile I have disabled the edit request because that is for simple and specified changes which do not require consideration. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We can check with the 2021 Julian Easter. The Golden Number of 2021 is 8, and from the table in Date of Easter § Julian calendar, the Julian paschal full moon is Julian April 18. Which is Gregorian May 1 by adding the 13-day difference. (Searching the web verifies that Orthodox churches did celebrate Easter on the following Sunday, May 2 Gregorian.) Astronomically there was a full moon on April 26 (in my time zone), five days before the Julian paschal full moon. So the article is correct - "astronomical new moons were occurring four days before the calculated dates" in the 16th century, and often five days before in the 21st century. Indefatigable (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Rather than using information from Wikipedia, I did a calculation for the paschal new moon for each year from 1570 to and including 1582, and 2021. I calculated the new moon using the Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris, the chapter "The Calendar", section E, "Ecclesiastical Calendars" (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961). I obtained new moon information from the website of a retired NASA astronomer, Fred Espenak. (http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases2001.html and related pages) I changed dates for 2021 to the Julian calendar. The times are UT, although one could argue Rome or Jerusalem would be better times to use.

Ecclesiastical Julian new moon and astronomical new moon

Year	Ecclesiastical New Moon	Astronomical New Moon	Difference
1570	11-Mar	6-Mar	5
1571	30-Mar	25-Mar	5
1572	19-Mar	14-Mar	5
1573	8-Mar	3-Mar	5
1574	27-Mar	9-Apr	5
1575	16-Mar	12-Mar	4
1576	4-Apr	30-Mar	5
1577	23-Mar	19-Mar	4
1578	12-Mar	8-Mar	4
1579	2-Apr	27-Mar	6
1580	20-Mar	15-Mar	5
1581	9-Mar	5 Mar	4
1582	28-Mar	24-Mar	4
2021	5-Apr	18-Apr	6

Jc3s5h (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

One further point is that in times gone by, the new moon was considered to occur the first day the waxing crescent moon was visible. By modern standards, the moon is completely dark at the time of the new moon. So saying the astronomical new moon was about 4 days earlier than the ecclesiastical new moon is consistent with the older meaning of a new moon. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jc3s5h for your thoughtful reply. Calendar questions are sometimes confusing to me. I did an excercise to verify your proof and help clarify it for me.

Take the length of a metonic cycle = 6940 days and divide by 235. That gives an average lunation of 29.5319 days which is longer than the actual average synodical lunation of 29.53059 days. That would indeed make the astronomical phenomena occur before the ecclesiastical dates.

Thank you again! Gal2man (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jc3s5h for your thoughtful reply. Calendar questions are sometimes confusing to me. I did an excercise to verify your proof and help clarify it for me.

Take the length of a metonic cycle = 6940 days and divide by 235. That gives an average lunation of 29.5319 days which is longer than the actual average synodical lunation of 29.53059 days. That would indeed make the astronomical phenomena occur before the ecclesiastical dates.

Thank you again! Gal2man (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A more accurate excercise would be to use (365.25x19) = 6939.75 6939.75÷235=29.53085 29.53059<29.53085 Same result: astronomical precedes ecclesiastical.

Gal2man (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the difference between the Gregorian and the Julian calendar should be 15 days rather than 13 days after year 2000, as the Gregorian calendar skips leap years during century years which are not multiples of 400. So, after the year 1500 it would have been leap year only in 400, 800 and 1200 which would give a difference of 12 days (15 minus 3) but now the calendar only moved forward ten days.

Besides that, a year is 365.2422 days to be more exact. To make it into 365.2422 days, a leap day should be added every year which is a multiple of 4 and not a century year + every year which is a quarter-millennium year (i.e. a multiple of 250) + every year which is a quarter-decamillennium year (i.e. a multiple of 2500); it would make the years 250, 750, 1250, 1750, 2250, 2500, 2750, 3250, 3750, 4250 and 4750 leap years = eleven "exceptional leap years" per half-decamillennium, which is exactly what should be needed to get an average year of 365.2422 days = 365 + 1211/5000. 213.65.211.63 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar.

Should the 0.0075 not be 0.75 in the following “ The Gregorian reform shortened the average (calendar) year by 0.0075 days to stop the drift of the calendar with respect to the equinoxes.”? 192.145.145.236 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The current value is correct. The change from Julian to Gregorian meant dropping 3 leap days over a 400-year period. 3/400 = 0.0075 days per year average. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC for help with Julian calendar conversion algorithm

There's a somewhat technical mathematical discussion at the Julian day article related to how algorithms convert Julian date to calendar date. I think some of the people watching this article might be able to contribute. Here's the specific RFC section: Talk:Julian_day#Request_For_Comment_on_presentation_of_algorithms— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

Change Hegira to Hijrah اخسجہ (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment: makes sense, given that the relevant article is Hijrah not Hegira. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done as has already been done for the other requests by same editor today.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Swapping description and lead sections?

Would it be better to move a bunch of the stuff in "Description" into the lead section, and move what's now in the lead section to a "History" section? The lead section right now really assumes you already are very familiar with the Gregorian calendar, which reads a bit odd to me. AapeliV (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

Please remove this sentence:

Because the date of Easter is a function – the computus – of the date of the (northern hemisphere) spring equinox

and add this one:

Because the date of Easter is a function – the computus – of the date of the spring equinox in the northern hemisphere

While it's slightly longer, it flows better without the parenthetical phrase. 192.180.91.15 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done – small jars tc 12:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-inaccuracy in top section

The number 365.2422 is the current length of the "mean tropical year", but the Gregorian calendar reformers weren't trying to approximate that (I'm not sure that the concept of mean tropical year was known in 1582). Since one of the main motivations of the Gregorian reform was to correct the date of Easter, and Easter is defined in terms of the vernal equinox, they were trying to approximate the vernal equinox year, or time interval separating vernal equinoxes, which is not exactly the same (the equinox interval is mentioned prominently near the beginning of our tropical year article). According to Tropical year#Different tropical year definitions, the current length of the vernal equinox year is 365.242374 days, and this number is more relevant for judging the accuracy of the Gregorian calendar than 365.2422. The devisers of the Revised Julian Calendar ignored this when they made the average year length be 365.242 days (a disimprovement with respect to the vernal equinox year -- they were more desperate to show their independence from Catholics by having their calendar not be exactly the same, than thinking about the historical function of the calendar with respect to Christianity). AnonMoos (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

THIS IS IMPORTANT!

You are right, but it is real, not just semi, inaccuracy that spreads a common astronomical misconception that needs to be corrected. I was going to edit the page directly, and if this is ignored I probably will.

I am not sure what a "Solar Year" is, but the period that the Earth orbits the sun is close to 365.26 years. As a professional astronomer, I would call this the "Orbital Period of the Earth around the Sun."

I would also call a "Tropical Year" the time between Vernal Equinoxes. Since the Vernal Equinox precesses, this is a little different than the period of the Earth around the sun.

The beginning of this should reflect this change. I propose the following:

CHANGE THIS:

The principal change was to space leap years differently so as to make the average calendar year 365.2425 days long, more closely approximating the 365.2422-day 'tropical' or 'solar' year that is determined by the Earth's revolution around the Sun.

TO THIS:

The principal change was to space leap years differently so as to make the average calendar year 365.2425 days long, more closely approximating the 365.2422-day 'tropical' year that is determined by the time from one 'vernal equinox' to the next. This is smaller than the period of the 'Earth's orbit', which is about 365.256 days. Jonathan Keohane (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read our article "Tropical year" which explains that the modern definition of the tropical year is not the time between vernal equinoxes, nor the mean time between vernal equinoxes, but "the period of time for the ecliptic longitude of the Sun to increase 360 degrees" (quoting the Astronomical Almanac Online Glossary). Jc3s5h (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose wording that talks about the "period of the Earth's orbit", since this is an ambiguous description. You seem to be using it as a synonym for "sidereal year", but "period of the Earth's orbit" could have other meanings (such as the sidereal year or the anomalistic year). If we want to refer to the sidereal year, we should use that terminology since it is unambiguous, but I don't really see that it's necessary to mention it in this context. The tropical year is different than a lot of different time periods; we don't need to mention all the things that it is not equal to. CodeTalker (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

:Time for a WP:rs then. How accurately could astronomers of the day measure the tropical year? And the reformers had to consider what would be acceptable and explicable to a substantially illiterate and inumerate "flock". The algorithm is good enough. IMO, the current statement in the lead is also good enough for our purposes: the "perfect" is described in detail in the body. We know that the orbit of planet earth is not a perfect metronome, so approximations will always be needed. For almost all of the people for almost all of the time, the niceties are entirely background radiation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading on mobile, I see I didn't quite appreciate your question, my apologies. Would it meet your objection if the current more closely approximating the 365.2422-day 'tropical' or 'solar' year that is determined by the Earth's revolution around the Sun. were rephrased as more closely approximating the true duration of the time between vernal equinoxes, which is a little less than than the 365.25 days in the Julian calendar. I think we can say that without breaking WP:OR (and the present lead doesn't even say what the Julian figure is, so needs adding).

BTW, we shouldn't really say determined by the Earth's revolution around the Sun. since at the time the sun went around the earth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Where angels fear to tread

I decided to be bold and give effect to this discussion so that the lead would read

The Gregorian calendar is the calendar used in most parts of the world.^ref It was introduced in October 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII as a modification of, and replacement for, the Julian calendar. The principal change was to space leap years differently so as to make the average calendar year 365.2425 days long, which is a little less than than the 365.25 days in the Julian calendar but which more closely approximates the true duration of the time between vernal equinoxes.

but that introduces duplication in close succession, because the next para (after stating the rule) reads

There were two reasons to establish the Gregorian calendar. First, the Julian calendar assumed incorrectly that the average solar year is exactly 365.25 days long, an overestimate of a little under one day per century, and thus has a leap year every four years without exception. The Gregorian reform shortened the average (calendar) year by 0.0075 days to stop the drift of the calendar with respect to the equinoxes.

Would it be too terse to delete There were two reasons to establish the Gregorian calendar. First, the Julian calendar assumed incorrectly that the average solar year is exactly 365.25 days long, an overestimate of a little under one day per century, and thus has a leap year every four years without exception. ? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No, not delete. How about There were two reasons to establish the Gregorian calendar. First, the Julian calendar overestimated the length of the year by a little under one day per century, and thus has a leap year every four years without exception. Better? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If a tropical year is exactly 365.2422 days (=365 + 1211/5000 days), the Gregorian calendar or Revised Julian calendar should be 365.2422 days. To make it into 365.2422 days, the calendar needs a leap year rule that a leap day should be added every year which is a multiple of 4 and not a century year + every year which is a quarter-century year (i.e. a multiple of 250) + every year which is a quarter-decamillennium year (i.e. a multiple of 2500): thus the years 250, 750, 1250, 1750, 2250, 2500, 2750, 3250, 3750, 4250 and 4750 would be leap years.

Besides this I wonder why a calendar year starts in January, rather than in March. In the Roman calendar, a year started in March and ended in the next February. If a calendar year would be March-February rather than January-December, a leap day could be added in late-August rather than late-February, as late-August would be the mid of the year (if the year would be March-February), and I think a year should rather than in its beginning or its end have a leap day in its middle. 212.100.101.104 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

On your point one, that may well be true and perhaps in a thousand years' time (if homo questionably sapiens still exists) the calendar may be revised. When it is, a future Wikipedia will document it as reality and until then, it cannot go in the article (see policies WP:CRYSTAL and WP:No original research). On your point two, see New Year's Day#New Year's Day in the older Julian calendar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You must have meant "quarter-millennium year", not "quarter-century year", as years which are multiples of 250 are a quarter-millennium. 217.21.226.230 (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how the difference from the Gregorian to the Julian calendar may be -13 days now (since 13 March 1900 Gregorian) and -10 days between March 1500 and March 1700. Between 1500 and 1700, the difference is supposed to have been twelve days, if applying the rule "no leap day in century years except those that are multiples of four hundred", as the century years 400, 800 and 1200 would be leap years; i.e. three century years of fifteen and 15 minus 3 = 12. If the difference is 10 days rather than 12 days after year 1500, a different leap year rule should have applied before the 16th century; i.e. a rule that a century year is a leap year only if being a multiple of 300 (which would make 300, 600, 900, 1200 and 1500 leap years), or a rule that a leap day shall be added every year which is a multiple of 4 and not a century year + every half-millennium year and quarter-millennium year (which would make the years 250, 500, 750, 1250 and 1500 leap years). 212.100.101.104 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Eleven days in 1700 (see Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#"Give us our eleven days!" – the calendar riot myth). But it really doesn't matter in the real world, as I have explained already. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The goal of the committee that devised the new calendar was to return the date of the northern hemisphere spring equinox to 21 March. This had been the traditional date since the Council of Nicea. They made the judgement this required skipping 10 days. Since they didn't state which city the correction was meant to be most valid for, it's hard to judge how accurate the correction was.

Also, there was no intent to renumber years before 1583; historical dates were just left as they were. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

However, I think the Gregorian or revised Julian calendar should let a year run from March to February, like the Roman calendar, rather than January to December. It would be more realistic to add a leap day in the end of August rather than February, as late-August would be mid-year if the year were March-February, and adding an extra day in mid-year is more realistic than adding an extra day in the end or beginning of the year.

P.S.: The rule that a leap day should be added in February was kept at the switch from the Roman to Julian calendar, despite the change of the year from March-February to January-December. 212.100.101.104 (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:TALK#TOPIC states "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject...." Proposed changes to calendars made by Wikipedia editors do not belong on talk pages (or anywhere else in Wikipedia). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roman Republic not Roman Emprie

One of the tables shows 153 BC as the date the Roman Empire adopted 1 January as New Year's Day. There was NO Roman Empire in 153 BC. The Roman Empire did not exist until 27 BC. when Augustus became the first Emperor.

Julius Caesar had not even been born yet in 153 BC, which was VERY much within the days of the Roman REPUBLIC not the Roman empire.

2601:645:C57F:74A0:71FE:65DD:4352:40EF (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Jewish calendar

I’m not Jewish! BUT why isn’t the Jewish Calendar listed in the list of calendars, which is the true calendar the world should be operating on⁉️🧐🧐🧐 78.149.113.1 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I am Jewish and have no idea what you're talking about. The Rabbinic Jewish calendar is listed in the infobox but is misidentified as the Hebrew calendar.

There are three Hebrew calendars in use today: The Rabbinic Jewish Calendar, which starts on 1 Tishri. The Karaite Jewish calendar, which starts on 1 Aviv (which starts on the first new moon after the ripening of the barley in Israel). And the Samaritan calendar, which starts on 1 Elul. The years are the same for the two Jewish calendars; they just start at different times (one in the spring, one in the autumn). The Samaritan Hebrew calendar uses a different system of numeration and calculation altogether.

2601:645:C57F:74A0:71FE:65DD:4352:40EF (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately per WP:COMMONNAME, the Rabinical calendar is the one most widely known outside Judaism. Life's a bitch. See also Islamic calendar, meaning the Sunni Lunar Hijri calendar getting priority over the Shia Solar Hijri calendar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Redundant none sense, typical of wikipedia "encyclopedia"...

no need to say something repeats itself once and only once, no wonder people stay away from this "encyclopedia"...https://www.pcworld.com/article/525199/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html WIKIPEDIA ENORMOUS MISTAKES, OF COURSE - THE USUAL nbcnews.com/id/wbna32588168 197.204.39.77 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

flounder jimbo Wales claims he trusts his administrators, will not question their "reasoning" but they have no sound reasoning at all and wikipedia became nobody's land,except fantasy world to senior editors who complement each other,but newbies get burned on the spot...tsk tsk tsk..

Calendar cycles repeat completely every 400 years, which equals 146,097 days.[e][f] Of these 400 years, 303 are regular years of 365 days and 97 are leap years of 366 days. A mean calendar year is 365+ 97 / 400

days = 365.2425 days, or 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes and 12 seconds.[g] During intervals that do not contain any century common years (such as 1800, 1900 and 2100), the calendar repeats every 28 years, during which 29 February will fall on each of the seven days of the week once and only once. All other dates of the year fall on each day exactly four times, each day of the week having gaps of 6 years, 5 years, 6 years, and 11 years, in that order.

where is proof of 5 years, repetition happens every 6 years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.207.170.241 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The passage "During intervals...11 years, in that order" strikes me as trivia that does not belong in an encyclopedia. I removed it. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And if you hadn't got there first, I would have done it. These mathematical coincidences are entirely unremarkable and have no significance in the real world. See WP:TRIVIA. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)